Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, read.

To be considered on Thursday 10 December at Seven o'clock.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEM) (NO. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 10 December.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 December at Seven o'clock.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 December.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] 
(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 7 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Community Service Orders

Mr.Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of community service orders, with particular regard to their effectiveness and appropriate application.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The community service order is a sentence which should provide a realistic alternative to custody for serious offenders. Its use has more than doubled since 1979. We welcome this and would like to see a further increase in the number of community service orders made.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my hon. Friend aware that, valuable as community service orders are, if they are breached by the offender they must be backed up and enforced by penalties more severe than community service, not less severe, otherwise they will be treated as a soft option, and an avoidable soft option at that, rather than the sensible and effective punishment that they could be?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has put his finger right on the point, which it is critically important if we are to develop the use of community service orders, which are commonly held by Government and Opposition Members as well as by the general public to be effective and proper punishment. That means that anyone who is in breach of a community service order must be dealt with correctly by the courts. I assure my hon. Friend that I am conducting a survey on the imposition of community service orders and how they are carried out. If we find that there are any problems, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I will not hesitate to act.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that, as the effectiveness of community service as a sentence has been proved over many years, the time has come to consider the length of community service orders so as to develop them as yet a further alternative to imprisonment and thus decrease the number of offenders sent to either youth custody or imprisonment?

Mr. Patten: Mr. Speaker, I crave your indulgence. May I take this opportunity to apologise to the hon. Gentleman, for I fear that he thought that in a winding-up speech three Fridays ago, in a debate on crime prevention, I slighted him.

Mr. Speaker: That is a bit wide, I think.

Mr. Patten: I wanted to do it publicly. It may have been wide, but I think it was handsome.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that we could develop the community service order by increasing the periods, by introducing a greater element of reparation to the victim who has been offended against, and by having a concept of custody in the community rather than custody in prison. The order must be tough, demanding and respected by the victim and the general public.

Prisons

Mr. Sackville: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those currently held in Her Majesty's prisons are on remand.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): On 31 October about 10,570 untried or convicted unsentenced prisoners were held in prison department establishments in England and Wales.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the delay in bringing accused people to trial is not only a major aggravation of overcrowding problems in prison but, by our own high standards, a serious infringement of human rights?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that having more than one fifth of the prison population unsentenced or unconvicted is wrong and is too high. That is why we are doing everything that we can to speed up the process of business in magistrates' courts, and that is why, in three police areas, I am using the power given me under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to introduce time limits on remand before the case is brought to trial.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the few things that mitigate the rigours of remand is the entitlement of remand prisoners to food, drink and other comforts being brought into the remand prison by relatives? Will he tell the House that he has no plans whatever to reduce the privileges of remand prisoners, which are already few enough?

Mr. Hurd: We have, in our reply to the Select Committee's report, which we have published today— there is another question on the Order Paper — announced our intention to remove the special food privileges for remand prisoners. Clearly, whatever its justification at a time when food was scanty and bad, there is no justification for it today. It involves a danger of smuggling in drugs and other materials. It wastes a lot of prison officer time and its benefit to the remand population does not justify its continuance.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend look closely at the whole concept of remand, as prisoners have an interest in spinning out their period on remand if they know that ultimately they will be convicted, because their privileges on remand are rather better than those on full imprisonment?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly true that not all the delays to which the question refers are the result of the prosecution. There are occasions when delay is caused by the defence.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Home Secretary accept that removing the rights of people held on remand is no answer to the problems of and pressure on the prison service? When does he expect that prisoners on remand will cease to be kept in police stations in London and the Home Counties?

Mr. Hurd: The decision that we have taken about food privileges for remand prisoners follows a recommendation to that effect from the Select Committee.

Mrs. Taylor: That is not an answer to all the problems.

Mr. Hurd: It is not an answer to all the problems. No single measure is ever an answer to all problems, but it certainly means that prison officers will be able to use their

time to the greater benefit of the regime than when they are searching food brought in for remand prisoners. The hon. Lady is perfectly correct to focus again on the mischief of remand prisoners, or indeed of any prisoners, being held in police cells. The measures now being taken in the north-west will certainly help to relieve the situation
there—

Mrs. Taylor: When?

Mr. Hurd: Shortly. But I am still concerned about the position in the south-east.

Police Manpower

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to review police manpower.

Mr. Hurd: At the end of September 1987 police manpower in England and Wales was at the record level of 123,740.I am constantly considering applications from police authorities for increases in their establishments. I hope to make an announcement before the end of this month about the increase which I am able to approve for the remainder of this financial year as part of the expansion programme that I announced in May 1986.

Mr. Watts: In considering the announcement that my right hon. Friend will be making later in the month, will he bear in mind that the Thames Valley police force, which serves my constituency and his, has the worst ratio of police to population of any authority anywhere in the country, that its establishment is inadequate on every measurement criterion, and that to achieve the average level of establishment for comparable provincial forces it would need an increase of 780 officers? In view of that, will he accept that anything less than full approval of the authority's application for an extra 200 officers this year would be viewed by my constituents, and I suggest also by his, as completely inadequate?

Mr. Hurd: The application from Thames Valley is one of the biggest that has been put forward, coming from a force which has had a bigger increase since 1979 than any other force outside London. That is not to deny the strength of the case that my hon. Friend has summarised. It clearly is a strong case. My hon. Friend will not expect me to play favourites simply because my constituency, like his, is in the area, but we are looking at the Thames Valley application alongside many others, for which many hon. Members will make strong arguments.

Mr. Hattersley: Why do the police forces have to wait so long for the Home Secretary to come to a decision about this? He will recall that the Thames Valley chief constable says that he is 700 men short of the realistic minimum number to police his area. He applied for the increase in June. Why is he still waiting for an answer?

Mr. Hurd: Because we look at the applications several times a year, and I have to fit that into the programme of expansions that I announced in May 1986. The programme has already brought about a further increase of 1,500 in police strength in the first six months of this year. Following a long period of neglect, we are continuing the programme of my two predecessors for a steady expansion in the police forces of England and Wales, which have had a bigger share of the increase than any


other part of the public sector, thus giving the priority which we said that we would give, and which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government sadly neglected.

Mr. Mates: While our record is second to none in the increased resources that we have given to the police authorities, and while some police authorities may indeed still need extra resources, are we not entitled, now that we have put the whole policing operation in this country on to a higher footing, to look to the police forces to examine their own systems of management and give us better value for money than they may have given in the past?

Mr. Hurd: That is indeed very important. One of the first questions that we ask when we receive an application from a force is whether that force is "civilianising" — using civilians behind desks and computers, at about half the cost of a professional police officer. In London, for example, the programme of civilianisation now under way, with 600 new civilians to be recruited, will lead to the release of 400 police officers to professional duties on the beat.

Prisons (Crown Immunity)

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to remove the Crown immunity of Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: We are not persuaded that there is anything to be gained from the removal of Crown immunity from prison establishments, as we are satisfied that the present arrangements are effective in setting and monitoring the standards required by legislation.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will no doubt recall the outbreak of salmonella at Wakefield prison in August this year. I understand that his Department has received a copy of the document resulting from the environmental health officers' investigation into the outbreak. May I ask for his comments on paragraph 5.6, which states:
In the absence of Crown immunity there is no doubt that a failure to take immediate action to remedy the many contraventions of the Food Hygiene General Regulations 1970 would result in recommendation that legal proceedings—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please paraphrase rather than reading?

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will we have to wait for another Stanley Royd disaster before we get some action?

Mr. Patten: I am aware of the outbreak last August. However, if the hon. Gentleman reads the whole report —as I am sure he has, and I appreciate his concern for the welfare of people in his constituency—he will see that nowhere in the report do the environmental health officers suggest that the outbreak of salmonella poisoning was caused by any problems with food preparation in the kitchens at that prison. Other remedial suggestions were put forward and have been taken account of by prison authorities. The prison was inspected independently by our environmental health officers on 25 November.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was the present Government who removed Crown immunity from National Health Service hospitals, and that the principle has therefore been established? Has it

not proved satisfactory and worked in the interests of the service? Will he reflect on what he has said and perhaps consider the question again?

Mr. Patten: I always reflect on what my hon. Friend says. I can only say that all the prison service environmental health officers are trained to the same level as local authority environmental health officers, and inspections are carried out to exactly the same high standard. It does not strike me that there is much difference between a service conducted by a group of long-established people who have given good service to the prison department, and one conducted by others who happen to be in a local authority.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that both Mr. Jim Kay, of the Prison Officers Association, and I were incredulous last week when Lord Caithness told us that conditions in British prisons, despite Crown immunity, were up to standard in regard to food hygiene, health and safety? Would he care to go on record as saying that that is the official Home Office position?

Mr. Patten: My noble Friend Lord Caithness had the opportunity last week to see the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. They were told quite clearly that the Home Office view is that to provide food to a reasonable standard is a very important part of providing a good prison regime. That is what the Home Office consistently tries to do, and that includes and involves all related environmental health issues.

Television Violence

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with members of the broadcasting authorities to discuss violence in television.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): At a meeting on 29 September the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA made it clear to my right hon. Friend that the broadcasting authorities share the public concern on this issue and are taking further action to tighten up the enforcement of programme standards. This includes, a more selective approach to material produced abroad and improved arrangements for checking and reviewing programmes.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend state from the Dispatch Box the absolutely unequivocal truth about the connection between what people see on television and how they behave, because that is now clearly established? Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the violent television programmes are of foreign, and in particular United States, origin? Will he bring that fact to the attention of the IBA and the BBC?

Mr. Renton: Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend recently announced the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council. It will not be a regulatory body, but it could conduct research into precisely that point — the connection between violence shown on the television screen and violence in the real world outside.

Mr. Turner: In the Chancellor's Autumn Statement: he said that there would be substantial additional resources for the police. I wonder whether the Home Secretary could tell me when we may see—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about the broadcasting authorities, which is the subject of Question 5?

Mr. Gale: When my hon. Friend met the broadcasting authorities, was he able to suggest to them that if the proceedings of this House were to be televised, those who are charged with the duty of curbing violence on television would face an even more impossible task than that which they so manifestly fail to carry out already?

Mr. Renton: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. He is an expert on broadcasting, and doubtless he will make that point in any future debate on televising the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Corbett: I suspect that the House will want to take this matter more seriously than does the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Does the Minister agree that it would be quite proper to request the BBC to change its decision to start showing the three-part series "The Marksman", which was withdrawn immediately after the violence at Hungerford? The pain and distress that would be caused by that film, which I understand concerns a character who goes round blowing people apart in order to get what he considers to be vengeance, would hit immediately those families in Hungerford and elsewhere who have been involved in shooting incidents.

Mr. Renton: I understand very clearly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He will appreciate that it is not the job of Ministers to second-guess the decisions of the broadcasting authorities with regard to the interpretation of their statutory obligations regarding programming, but I have no doubt that the broadcasting authorities will bear very carefully in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Obscene Publications Act

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to amend the Obscene Publications Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: We shall ask Parliament, as promised in our manifesto, to remove from the Obscene Publications Act 1959 the exemption for broadcasting.

Mr. Hind: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in the country that at the moment the Obscene Publications Act applies only to the written word? Should not urgent consideration be given to extending it to the visual media, particularly bearing in mind the amount of violence on television, from which many criminals get their ideas, since violent crime is essentially imitative?

Mr. Renton: I should make the point to my hon. Friend that the Obscene Publications Act is by no means a dead letter. Between 1980 and 1986 there were nearly 1,800 convictions for offences under the Act. We intend to remove the broadcasting exemption and incorporate it into the Broadcasting Bill, which we shall bring before Parliament as soon as we can. Unfortunately, that will not be during this Session but we shall do it as soon as we can.

Mr. Cryer: When the Minister produces this exemption, will he bear in mind the number of occasions when the Prime Minister appears on television supporting

the building of Trident at a cost of £11 billion, which involves a threat of mass extermination of millions of men, women and children—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might have been more in order on the last question, not on this one.

Mr. Cryer: Murder is obscene.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the rules are.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's remarks remind us that the extreme Left is alive and kicking. It is doubtless that sort of remark that the broadcasting authorities will have to think about when deciding about the televising of Parliament.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer to the main question about the extension of the Obscene Publications Act will be welcomed in my constituency, where it is considered essential? When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the BBC and IBA, will he remind them that Mr. Michael Grade — who seems to straddle both organisations — was recently converted to the extension of the Obscence Publications Act, and will he recommend that the authorities should support what my right hon. Friend is doing in the House?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that support. I have noted what he said about the conversion of Mr. Michael Grade to this point of view. There is a general wish among Conservative Members to remove the exemption for broadcasting authorities from the Obscene Publications Act as soon as we can.

Prisons

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of the third report of the Home Affairs Committee on the state and use of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The Government's reply is published today.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his rapid response to my question. For the benefit of those who have not yet read it, and in the interests of prisoners, staff and potential victims of future crime, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pointless building more prisons without doing something about the conditions of existing ones? Bearing in mind that the Committee recommend the phasing out of Crown immunity, and bearing in mind also the earlier answer of the Minister of State today, is it not an appalling contribution to the rule of law that the Government should wish to evade responsibility for legal requirements?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has already answered the point about Crown immunity. We are interested in making progress, not only to multiply prison places — I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman — but in particular to introduce modern sanitation where there is none today. We are pressing ahead with that and we have had substantial sums of money from the Treasury for that purpose. It is not a whit advanced by removing Crown immunity or by a minimum code of standards.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that prison officers' representatives and management at


Northeye prison welcome the principle of Fresh Start, but say that it cannot properly be put into practice until the agreed staffing levels are met?

Mr. Hurd: We are recruiting a substantial number of extra prison staff this year — 750 — to meet the Fresh Start reforms. Fresh Start involves each establishment working out new and more sensible ways of doing its job. That requires an adjustment and is bound to produce a certain amount of controversy. We are currently evaluating manpower requirements.

Nazi War Crimes

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what action he intends to take in regard to those living in the United Kingdom who are alleged to have committed Nazi crimes in the last war.

Mr. Hurd: We are urgently considering the policy and legal implications of documents provided by the Simon Wiesenthal centre. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions soon.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate what the Home Secretary has just said, but would it not be quite wrong if those held responsible for the most monstrous Nazi war crimes were allowed to get away scot-free because they happened to be living in the United Kingdom? Therefore, is not the real choice for the Government that of changing the law on extradition, as we have been urging on the Irish Government on another matter, or allowing legal proceedings to take place in this country?

Mr. Hurd: The truth is that we have no jurisdiction as things stand over crimes, however serious, committed overseas by individuals who were not British citizens at that time, nor is there, under present arrangements or likely arrangements, a possibility of extradition; nor can there be any thorough further investigation without jurisdiction. We have to decide whether we should assert jurisdiction by a change in the law, and if so how that should be defined. That is far from easy. The ethical and legal considerations are very serious and do not all point in the same way. We are considering how to proceed.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we detest the perpetrators of war crimes, we should not institute extraordinary legal changes to enable mere allegations to be pursued?

Mr. Hurd: The difficulty is that it is hard to pursue beyond the stage of mere allegations when there is no jurisdiction. There is certainly no question of creating crimes or offences retrospectively. It is a question of the width of our jurisdiction over crimes that are recognised by everyone as crimes.

Mr. Flannery: When massive evidence is accruing about crimes committed during the war as in the case of Gecas in Edinburgh, will we tolerate a situation where a trial needs to take place to let us all know whether the crimes have been committed, or will we leave a man like that and apparently 16 others in this country and do nothing about them after all that we think they have done?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not listened to the exchanges over the past two minutes. I have set out the considerations and the options that we are considering.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend please be extremely wary on this issue and take note of the fact that the supporters of this particular proposal are motivated, not by justice, but by the demands of propaganda? Will he also be aware of the fact that many of his hon. Friends would be extremely concerned if he were to pursue such legislation, which would, in effect, be retrospective?

Mr. Hurd: The question is how we deal with extremely serious allegations. I do not want to repeat myself, in case I get the balance slightly different, but I have set out deliberately all the considerations. We must be very cautious about this, because the considerations either way are very serious. As soon as we have reached a conclusion we shall let the House know.

Mr. Alex Carlile: If the Home Secretary announces jurisdictional changes in due course, will he also consider the necessity of announcing specific funds so that proper police investigations can be carried out into the allegations that have been made?

Mr. Hurd: Any change would certainly produce costs. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else would think that that consideration should be decisive.

Autocrime

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the degree to which autocrime features in the overall crime statistics; and what steps his Department is taking to combat this problem.

Mr. John Patten: Thefts of and from vehicles represent some 25 per cent, of all recorded offences. Most car crime is either avoidable or preventable. We have made determined efforts to get that message across to motorists and manufacturers. Last week the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention decided to establish a widely representative working group on car crime which will review the subject and produce recommendations before this time next year.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Does he recall that autocrime is now one of the fastest growing crimes in this country, if not the fastest? Is he further aware of the amount of police time currently spent investigating those crimes? Will he therefore contact again the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in an endeavour to persuade it to make cars and vehicles generally more secure than is currently the case? Will he also have discussions with the insurers to persuade them to give lower premiums to car owners who adequately protect their vehicles?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is quite right. It seems to be a British disease not to lock cars when leaving them. About 20 per cent, of stolen cars seem to be left unlocked by motorists. That means that the police spend up to 1 million man hours a year investigating car-related crime, and that time could be spent investigating more serious crimes.
It is critically important that people take more responsibility for the prevention of car crime. To say that is not to give a nannying message. That is an authentically Conservative message. We want people to take responsibility over education, housing and crime. Yes, I


will indeed continue my discussions with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Association of British Insurers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now that Thames Valley police have admitted that they have one of the highest rates of reported crime per officer in the whole of the south of England, and now that the Minister himself has admitted that there has been a long period of neglect, is it not time that the Home Secretary responded positively to the demands for the 700 additional policemen needed to deal with crimes in the Thames Valley area? Is not Ministers' indifference to those demands disgraceful in the context of escalating crime in the Thames valley?

Mr. Patten: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not aware —he cannot have been listening carefully enough—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was referring to the long and sustained period of neglect of the police by the last Labour Administration. Here are some of the guilty men on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Dickens: Given the mobility of the criminal today, what new initiatives is the Home Office taking to ensure that women are free to walk without fear of abuse and rape—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dickens: What will be done to ensure that women can walk freely—[Interruption.]—without—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not persist when I rise. This question is about autocrime.

Firearms

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the present legal restrictions on the possession and use of firearms; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We have received some 900 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and over 4,500 from members of the public, including secretaries of rifle and pistol clubs. We have also received correspondence from shooting organisations, police and local authority representatives and a number of other bodies with an interest in the review of firearms controls. Although many, but not all, shooting interests oppose some of the proposals that we have announced, they seem otherwise to have been well received generally.

Mr. McAllion: Yesterday the Home Secretary told the House that he saw no reason for clamping down on the sale of legitimate items by mail order. Will the Minister tell the House which potentially lethal weapons he thinks can be legitimately sold by mail order and what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that such weapons do not find their way into the hands of individuals who may cause a threat to public order?

Mr. Hogg: The important thing is to get the controls themselves right, and that we have done. Mail order is simply a technique for selling, and there is no particular reason for tackling a particular technique.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that since the White Paper was published yesterday many Norfolk farmers and legitimate sportsmen have contacted me to

express their concern about the legitimate use of guns in their sport? Will the Minister undertake that their sporting freedom will not be impaired?

Mr. Hogg: We have very much in mind the legitimate interests of the shooting community. That is why we introduced the checks. When we come to consider the meaning of "good reason" in the context of shotgun control, we shall give such guidance as will protect the legitimate interests of my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. William Ross: On the basis of the number of legally held guns and stolen legally held guns used to commit murders in the past few years, how many lives does the Minister expect his proposals to save, and on what authority does he base any such estimate?

Mr. Hogg: We are in the business of reducing risk. That is what this country expects of us.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that all those who use guns legally will be delighted with the way in which our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has struck such an excellent balance on these difficult proposals? Does he agree that it is very much his Department's duty to monitor the proposals carefully— in particular their effect on gun clubs?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes, Sir.

Mr. Hattersley: On 26 October the hon. Gentleman expressly ruled out the application of the good reason criteria to shotguns. Is that not now Government policy?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening on 26 October. I expressly ruled out section 1 control. The present proposals are different.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend explain why he has decided to omit from his review the function of proof houses? Will he explain why proof houses, which were successfully privatised in the 17th century, and, to the mystery of gunmakers, are still relevant to the debate, should be excluded from any kind of control, when every gun in the country has to be proofed in one of the two houses in Birmingham and London?

Mr. Hogg: For present purposes we are looking at the Firearms Act 1968. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point about proof houses, and I look forward to discussing the matter with him.

Shoplifting

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) men and (b) women have been charged with and convicted of shoplifting during the most recent 12 months for which records are available.

Mr. John Patten: In 1986, 48,188 men and 25,157 women were proceeded against for theft from shops, and 42,142 men and 22,092 women were found guilty of such an offence.

Mr. Janner: Bearing in mind that many of those who were found guilty had pleaded guilty and that, of those who pleaded innocent, a majority were acquitted, will the Minister accept that there is a great risk of innocent people in self-service stores being prosecuted for shoplifting through mere forgetfulness and carelessness? As such a


risk is at its height during the present Christmas shopping period, will he warn shoppers to take great care so that they do not spend Christmas in fear? Will he also advise those who are responsible for prosecuting to be especially careful about how they deal with the elderly and the ill in such matters?

Mr. Patten: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's long-standing interest in the subject. Theft is theft. If people are found guilty of theft, they must be punished for theft. People can be found guilty only if the prosecution is able to prove dishonesty. The Attorney-General's guidelines to the police tell them how to handle elderly, confused or forgetful people.

Risley Remand Centre

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an inquiry into the management of Risley remand centre in the light of recent deaths at the centre.

Mr. John Patten: No, but as I said in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 1 December, Risley is to be inspected next year by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, and we shall be studying his report with particular care. Each such incident is carefully analysed to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the Minister aware that the deaths of Audrey Bergman, James Armstrong and Evan Evans took place in a short period between 25 July and 27 August? Does he know that all of them were depressed and that the two male prisoners had obviously tried earlier to take their lives? Will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State to agree to an early meeting with me and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who has a constituency interest, so that we may express in more depth the case for a public inquiry? Such a public inquiry would help to relieve the parents'suffering and also help to relieve public disquiet over Risley.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him in the last day or so offering a meeting between my noble Friend Lord Caithness, who is the Minister with responsibility for prisons, and himself and the hon. Member for Caernarfon.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that, a month before his death, Evan Evans had written to Caernarfon saying that he intended to take his own life? Is he further aware that his girl friend had written to prison authorities telling them of the danger of suicide, and that they lost the letter? In the circumstances, surely there should be a public inquiry as a matter of urgency, so that there will be no further incidents of that sort? Will he pass on the message to his right hon. Friend about the meeting with the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and myself? The matter must be pursued at the highest level.

Mr. Patten: These matters can be looked into when the hon. Gentlemen call on my noble Friend Lord Caithness to discuss the issue. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that guidelines on the prevention of suicide in prisons and remand centres were laid down only in March this year by the prison department.

Police (Nottinghamshire)

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on the applications he has received from Nottinghamshire police authority regarding the strengthening of the county constabulary.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend expects to reach a decision before the end of the month.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that earlier his hon. Friend the Minister of State made certain allegations about the decline of the police service under the previous Labour Government? Will he support Nottinghamshire county council, which is a Labour-controlled county council, in its plea for more police officers so that we can reduce the 35 per cent, increase in crime in Nottingham that has taken place under the law and order Government since 1979?

Mr. Hogg: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will be glad to know that since 1979 the total manpower available to the police service has increased by 19,000. On the second part of his question, he will also be glad to know that since 1979 the constabulary to which he has referred has had an increase of 114 in terms of new establishment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be departing later today for Copenhagen to attend the European Council.

Mr. Rooker: Is the Prime Minister aware that Ministers have admitted that, on the introduction of the poll tax in 1990, slightly more households will lose than will gain, but that people living in the gainer households number 14·2 million, whereas adults living in loser households number 18·8 million in England alone? Where is the majority support for that idea? Is it in the Cabinet of gainers, or in the country of losers?

The Prime Minister: As a way of paying for local government the community charge will expand the base of payment to people who do not pay at present, but who we feel should contribute to paying for local government when they benefit enormously from the services that local government provides. We all pay income tax and VAT —[Interruption.] Most people pay income tax, but not all. All pay value added tax, and some pay rates as well, but rates have far too narrow a base.

Mr. Burns: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend ensure that if Post Office workers go on strike the Government will immediately suspend the Post Office's monopoly in order to avoid suffering to millions of people in the build-up to Christmas, the time of good will?

The Prime Minister: If need be, we shall suspend the monopoly of the Post Office. I understand that a meeting


is continuing this afternoon between the unions and management. I hope that they will reach a sensible settlement, because to attempt to go on strike at this time of the year would be totally and utterly cruel to business, which relies on the postal service at this time of the year, and totally heartless to all the people who make contact with one another by Christmas cards and presents.

Mr. Kinnock: Before the pay review body considers nurses' pay and the important question of regrading, and in view of the serious shortages in many of the specialties of nursing, will the Prime Minister now give an undertaking that, this time, the Government will fund the whole of the nurses' pay award and any costs that result from regrading?

The Prime Minister: The restructuring proposals are not yet ready to go to the review body. If they are agreed they will, of course, go to the review body, which did not exist under the previous Labour Government. When the proposals come from the review body, we shall consider them in the usual way and consider also the financial arrangements for any proposals that may be made. In the meantime, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, next year in the United Kingdom there will be an increase in resources of about £1·1 billion for the National Health Service.

Mr. Kinnock: In view of the scale of anxiety and indeed of the crisis in the supply of nurses in many areas, and in view of the fact that the health authorities simply do not have the money to fund a regrading or any significant award, will the Prime Minister take the unusual step this year of giving guidance to that pay body and ensuring that when it does make an award there really is money to pay the nurses? Does she not realise that it would be both stupid and cruel to ask the health authorities to pay the nurses' award out of cuts and closures in hospitals wards?

The Prime Minister: I will prejudge neither the evidence to the review body nor what it says as a consequence. We stand very much on our record on the Health Service and the 64,000 more nurses that we now have. In the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency the increase in Health Service funding was 6 per cent, in real terms over the whole period of the last Labour Government, whereas it has risen by 20 per cent, under us. So Gwent will be very pleased.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not realise yet that neither nurses nor patients are interested in the past, but are interested in the future? [Interruption.] The jeering from the Tory Benches is only further evidence of the fact that, by going private, they manifest total ignorance of what the nurses and patients feel. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the awards are to be funded properly, or are to be paid for out of further closures?

The Prime Minister: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. The trouble is that he does not listen. But let me say that the last thing that nurses want is to be back under a Labour Government, to have their pay cut.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to write to the Leader of the Opposition and invite him, on behalf of his constituents, to seek to ensure that in the forthcoming contest for the leadership of the miner's union the vote is carried out—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a part of the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Westland

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will arrange for the early release of non-classified records in relation to the Westland affair.

The Prime Minister: No. All records relating to Westland will be dealt with in the normal way in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts.

Mr. Dalyell: Did Mr. Charles Powell really fail to inform his Prime Minister of the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: As I have told the House and the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, I have nothing to add to the many statements and speeches that I have made in detail on this whole matter. Nothing to add.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any relationship between the obsessions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with the Westland affair, the Belgrano and various other matters, and the fact that, of all the Labour candidates in Scotland at the general election, he had one of the worst results?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with this question, which is about the Westland affair.

Mr. John Morris: When the Prime Minister set up the inquiry, did she know that it was an official leak?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that I have nothing further to add to the detailed statements and speeches which have gone into great detail and which have been given to the House. There is nothing further to add to those statements.

Mr. Warren: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when evidence on Westland was given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I had the honour to be Chairman at the time, there was never at any time any qualification about the standard of the information given, nor did we find any withheld?

Engagements

Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister find time today to explain her reasons for believing that, under electricity privatisation, the free market should not be allowed to decide whether a new generation of nuclear power stations would be a viable proposition?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that point has already been dealt with in extenso by the Sizewell inquiry. As well as being a viable proposition, other matters are also involved. Obviously one wants electricity power stations generated on different bases, some from coal, some from gas, some from oil and some from nuclear power. That is much the wisest course of action.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, today, she takes with her to Copenhagen the good wishes of everyone on the Conservative Benches? It is crucial for the interests of farming communities as well as taxpayers and consumers that some sense is brought to the European Community budget.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall be going to Copenhagen for what will undoubtedly be a very difficult meeting, but it is vital that we address, and attempt to solve, with determination, the question of surplus agricultural products, the question of sound financial discipline and, of course, that we maintain our Fontainebleau abatement, which has served this country very well.

Answers to Questions

Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to seek to alter the current practice of Ministers at Question Time reading from prepared briefs.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend — the hon. Gentleman—sorry.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

Mr. Alien: The people who listen on the radio to Prime Minister's Question Time will not be aware that the Prime Minister does not answer questions off the cuff, but reads her answers from a prepared brief. Is that because the Prime Minister does not have the wit to answer the questions, or is it because she has no confidence in her policies?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.

Mr. Allen: Is the reason the Prime Minister does not want television cameras in this Chamber that people would see the Prime Minister and Prime Minister's Question Time for the sham that they both are?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to broadcasting, I hope that people will also have the wit to know that one does not have a clue what will come out from the other side at all and I hope — [Interruption.] I do not know if anything of any value will come out from the other side, but just in case there should be anything of value one does take a great deal of trouble to try to provide statistics and to provide the facts. It is the facts that Opposition Members cannot stand. The reason why I do not want television is that I am afraid that people would see too much of what the other side are really like, and that would not enhance the reputation of this House.

Engagements

Mr. Stern: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the accord that he announced yesterday on the subject of Gibraltar? That accord does not involve any loss of sovereignty and will lead to better relationships with Spain and cheaper air fares throughout Europe.

The Prime Minister: Yes, congratulations are very much in order to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on negotiating this agreement, which

will be of great benefit to Europe in terms of cheaper air fares and air liberalisation. That accord has been agreed without any derogation from the sovereignty of Gibraltar and gives the Gibraltarians the possibility of joining that agreement if they wish to do so.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Prime Minister agree that the decision of the Government of the Irish Republic to refer extradition applications from the United Kingdom to their Attorney-General will make extradition from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom an extremely political act? Does the Prime Minister further agree that it allows the Government of the Irish Republic to increase pressure for judicial change in the United Kingdom in exchange for such extraditions? During her pleasant flight this afternoon, will the Prime Minister reflect that such a power would not be created by the Irish Government if it was not their intention to use it?

The Prime Minister: On the last occasion that I answered from the Dispatch Box I answered a question about the extradition arrangements. The old extradition arrangements that we had were excellent and fair. Neither side looked through the warrant. They accepted the warrant and the fact that when a warrant was presented there was evidence and intention to prosecute. I believe that the arrangements now — the measures that have recently gone through the Dail in the Republic—are a step backwards, because they undo that most excellent arrangement. I made it clear that extradition will be more difficult. I see no reason why we, on our side, should ever attempt to make extradition more difficult. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done everything possible, in concert with Europe, to make extradition easier and to ensure that the people against whom there are serious charges are extradited to the country that requires them so that they can be properly and fully tried.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In preparing her efforts to ensure common sense in the Common Market at Copenhagen—[Interruption.]—whatever the Opposition may think, my right hon. Friend has the support of the whole country—will she draw encouragement, not only from the backing of public opinion here, but from the support given by the West German people, as shown in a recent public opinion poll?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and of colleagues. It is vital that we tackle the issue of agricultural surpluses in the way proposed by the Commission—by stabilisers for each and every product. The worst thing that could happen would be a message from the European Council that, once again, we had run away from the issue instead of tackling it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will be resolute in our approach to the Council meeting and in our performance at it.

BCal-SAS (Negotiations)

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) (by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in the light of the latest developments in the negotiations between British Caledonian Airways and SAS.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The Government's policy remains as set out in the 1984 airline competition policy White Paper.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed answer. Could I ask him, if the matter of shareholding in British Caledonian is the problem, what percentage of SAS shareholding he would find acceptable—20 per cent., 25 per cent, or any other figure up to 30 per cent.? What percentage of British Airways shares were sold on foreign stock exchanges at the time the airline was unwisely privatised? What percentage of BA shares are currently held by non-British individuals and institutions?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any final decision on this matter will be made in the interests of air travellers and those employed in the industry, and will not be based on the apparently endless ambition and influence of Lord King, or the rambling xenophobia of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)?

Mr. Channon: It is not for me to say what the position is in relation to an exact shareholding. The Civil Aviation Authority has certain duties under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to inform me that, in its view, an airline is no longer under effective United Kingdom control. It cannot do that until a proposition has been made, but it can give informal guidance. It has given informal guidance that, in its view, a proposal that has so far been put forward between SAS and BCal would amount to the airline no longer being under United Kingdom control. Under the circumstances, if the CAA makes such a recommendation, I have the power under the Act to revoke or to fail to revoke licences that may exist. I cannot take a final decision about that matter; I can only say — it is strongly in the public interest that I should do so—what I am minded to do. I have said that, in view of the CAA pronouncement, I would be minded to revoke the licences should a merger take place on those terms.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a very wide welcome for the way in which this matter has been handled? It will be particularly welcome that there has not been a further reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which would cause a further month's delay and uncertainty that BCal could not withstand. Equally, there will be a wide welcome for the fact that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that we would not tolerate ownership or control by a foreign airline of a British flag carrier. Has my right hon. Friend been told whether the Opposition are in favour of the nationalisation by the Scandinavians of a British private enterprise airline?

Mr. Channon: It is extremely difficult to discover what, if anything, the Opposition policy is on this matter. The only indication that I can give my right hon. Friend is that at Question Time on Monday, the official Opposition

spokesman seemed on the whole to be criticising us for allowing the talks between BCal and SAS to go on. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. It is a serious matter if a British scheduled airline passes under foreign control. One of the reasons why it would be serious is that it would be open to foreign Governments who were not satisfied that substantial ownership of an airline was in British hands to refuse to accept its designation for the services covered by agreements. That would have widespread repercussions.

Mr. David Steel: Would the Secretary of State clarify two points? Will he make it clear that there is a difference between control of a British airline and a minority stake in it, which is what is proposed by SAS? Will he confirm, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) says, that SAS is not wholly owned by the three Governments in Scandinavia, but is a private-public mixed enterprise in the same way that BP used to be in this country? Will he accept that the right hon. Member for Chingford is being totally consistent in attacking his successor at the Department of Trade and Industry because it was the right hon. Gentleman in 1984 who removed the doctrine of the public interest as the basis of merger policy and who now, in talking about pillage by the Vikings, is missing out only the accusation of rape?

Mr. Channon: I do not agree with any of the right hon. Gentleman's points about the definition, or with his reference to my right hon. Friend attacking his successor. As one of my right hon. Friend's successors, I can say that he has never attacked me yet—[Laughter.]—and I hope that he will not. I intend to take good care that he does not. The right hon. Gentleman raised the serious matter of control of a United Kingdom airline and asked about the definition of effective control. That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the CAA. I have no powers to act unless the CAA reports to me that in its view effective control of a United Kingdom airline has passed out of United Kingdom hands. Then and only then do I have power to act. The points raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the definition of control are entirely matters for the CAA and not for me.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the excellent way in which his Department and the CAA have handled this very difficult matter? Will he confirm that it would be a very serious matter for British aviation if certain air service agreements were to be lost because British Caledonian had lost its United Kingdom interests?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the hypothetical situation in which a merger involving BCal took place and in which it was decided that effective control had passed out of British hands, could well be to the detriment of British civil aviation interests. The Government could well be obliged to designate another airline in BCal's place or to make concessions that would not have been necessary if the question of foreign control had not arisen. It is fair to make that clear.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What advice should I give to constituents who are employed by British Caledonian in the Edinburgh area about their employment prospects? What is the percentage of foreign ownership in


British Airways? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), are we sure that the Secretary of State for Transport was also representing the views of his right hon. Friend in the other place, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Channon: On the latter point, I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that that is indeed the case. My right hon. Friend's powers and my powers are entirely different. He acts under certain powers; I act under the powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. As to the employment prospects or, indeed, any of the other very important considerations that the parties concerned in this affair have to decide, it is for the CAA to make the best judgment of those matters rather than for me to comment at this stage.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I fully endorse the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and also express the hope that the philosophy underlying them will in future be applied by my right hon. Friend's Department to many other aspects of British commercial life?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall bear his advice in mind.

Mr. Barry Jones: In all this will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the wings of the Airbus are made in my constituency by 4,000 British Aerospace workers? In any merger, what will be the fate of the order for Airbus by British Caledonian?

Mr. Channon: It must be a matter for British Caledonian. It is not one that I can answer this afternoon, nor do I know what the outcome of the eventual negotiations will be. If a situation arose — this is hypothetical—in which a large British scheduled airline fell under the control of people who were not British nationals, and if the services then came into question, that would have serious consequences for employment as well.

Mr. Roger Moate: Can my right hon. Friend not make it clear that, as I understand it, it is Government policy to try to maintain a competitive second force airline in the United Kingdom? Is it not also clear that, under the proposed partnership with SAS, effective management and control could remain within the United Kingdom, at the same time retaining an effective competition? Is that not the crucial point? Can my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the shareholders can make a decision free of prejudice and free of the possibility of losing any vital routes?

Mr. Channon: As I tried to explain to the House, it is for the CAA at this stage only to give an informal

indication, as it was asked to do — it cannot make a decision — as to whether or not a proposed merger would result in effective control passing out of British hands. It was the CAA's view that effective control would pass out of United Kingdom hands. Under the circumstances, I had to consider what I would do. Therefore, I told the airline and the House that I would be minded to direct revocation of the licences. I have no locus in deciding whether or not effective control passes. That is for the CAA, which will have to consider arty representations made to it.
As to the whole question of airline competition policy, obviously we are anxious to encourage a competitive multi-airline industry with a variety of airlines serving the needs of travellers, to ensure adequate safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour by airlines and to ensure that British airlines Can compete effectively against foreign competitors.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: ; Will the Minister give a guarantee that in any newly constructed company there will be safeguards against Tory MPs becoming directors, despite any bullying that might come from the direction of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)?

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that civil air transport policy in Europe has for far too long been anticompetitive, too protective, illiberal and nationalistic? Does he agree that it would be good to get transnational mergers to break up some of the cosy cartels which have been so prejudicial to the interests of the travelling public?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal needs to be done to improve airline competition in Europe and, indeed, in the world in general. We may take some modest steps on that early next week at the Community Transport Council when I hope that we will adopt the aviation package that will be before us. In this case I had to decide whether I should give an indication about my powers when the CAA itself had given such an indication. I am sure that I was right to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage.

Mr. Marlow: I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman knows that I do not take points of order until the proper time.

British Steel Corporation (Privatisation)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the British Steel Corporation. The corporation today announced its half-year results for 1987–88. These show a bottom line profit of £190 million. This compares to £178 million profit for the whole of 1986–87. This is an impressive improvement in the corporation's performance and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the corporation and all its employees on such an impressive achievement.
As the House is aware, the Government are committed to returning successful state industries such as steel to the private sector as soon as practicable. It is quite apparent that the British Steel Corporation has now reached the stage where it would benefit from a return to a fully commercial environment. I am therefore pleased to announce that I am setting in hand the work necessary to privatise the corporation as soon as possible, subject to market conditions. Legislation will be required to turn the corporation into a private company. This will be introduced later in the current Session.
In accordance with the previous commitments given by the Government, the corporation will continue with five integrated plants until August 1988.I have been reviewing this with the corporation in the light of the current market position, which will require steel making at all five plants for a number of years. Scottish Members will be pleased to hear that the corporation will be putting out a statement today making clear that, subject to market conditions, there will continue to be a commercial requirement for steel making at Ravenscraig for at least the next seven years.
The corporation also expects that, again subject to commercial considerations, there will be a similar requirement for plate rolling at Dalzell. This therefore gives assurance to Ravenscraig's iron and steel-making facilities for a period much longer than the three-year commitments that the Government have been able to give in each of the two previous reviews in 1982 and 1985. The corporation has also indicated that, even if it should wish at some stage, because of market conditions, to close its steel-making facilities in Ravenscraig it would consider, on a commercial basis, any wholly private sector offer for those facilities as an alternative to closure.
There is clear surplus capacity in the British Steel Corporation, as throughout Europe, in hot strip. BSC's strip mills are currently running at below 70 per cent, of their potential capacity, which is among the lowest level of utilisation of strip mills anywhere in Europe. However, having reviewed the situation thoroughly, the Corporation has decided on commercial grounds that all their present mills, including the Ravenscraig mill, will continue to operate at least until 1989.
The Government's consistent aim has been to achieve a strong competitive British steel industry capable of performing well against international competition. This is in the best interests of the work force of British steel, of all its customers and in particular of steel users in the rest of British industry. The British Steel Corporation has already achieved a quite remarkable recovery and is now one of the most successful steel makers in western Europe.
I believe that early privatisation and full commercial freedom will enable the company and its work force to be best placed to go on to further achievements and to secure a firmly based competitive industry with a long-term future.

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a day when the British Steel Corporation and its work force deserve genuine congratulation, has the Minister not rewarded them instead with a statement which quite unnecessarily places their future in jeopardy? Does he not recognise that British Steel's success has been achieved under public ownership? Indeed, it is much more successful than privately owned manufacturing industry. Is it not the case that the success could not have been achieved without essential investment funded by the public purse and without debts being written off at the public expense? Is this to be yet another example of the taxpayer making the investment, but being denied the return; another case of the taxpayer picking up the bill but the City picking up the profit?
Does not this statement come at exactly the wrong moment—at a time when the EEC context in which the industry operates is in a state of maximum confusion? What will the Government say in the prospectus about quotas? What responsibility will the Government undertake to prospective buyers on that issue? Will not that uncertainty jeopardise the share issue altogether? Is not this another case of a privatisation which is dogma-driven and is to be carried through without regard to market conditions and the needs of the industry?
Does not the Minister's statement add to that uncertainty, particularly in regard to Ravenscraig? Is not the apparent guarantee of a seven-year future for Ravenscraig a hollow promise, depending as it does largely on so-called commercial considerations for which the Government will no doubt disclaim any responsibility, and depending also largely on the continuation of the hot strip mill, which, let it be noted, is given a guarantee for only the next 13 months? Can he not offer a better guarantee to Ravenscraig and its 3,000 workers than the weasel words contained in his statement?
Is it the Minister's intention to privatise British Steel as one entity, or is some other implication to be drawn from his statement? How is the privatisation to be organised? Is it to be by flotation or by merger, and if by merger, with whom? Finally, has the Minister taken the precaution of consulting the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on this important issue?

Mr. Clarke: It is obviously true that British Steel has gone through a difficult time under public ownership. In the bad old days, when British Steel was not doing very well, public ownership cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds as the corporation struggled to come to terms with the difficulties in the steel market. It is not as a result of public ownership that it has improved; it is as a result of the considerable efforts of the management and work force as they have adjusted to sometimes painful changes and have brought the corporation to its present level of performance.
Now that the corporation has reached that position we are offering the flexibility and the opportunities that privatisation will give. It will be free of the restraints of Whitehall and the controls on its expenditure that public


ownership brings. It can now go to flotation and operate competitively and flexibly in the market place because it is a strong and efficient producer with a good future.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asked about quotas. I shall be attending the European Steel Council next Tuesday which will be continuing discussions about what follows the present quota regime, which is due to come to an end on 31 December this year. At this moment, I have no idea what agreement will be arrived at, but we shall be pressing for an early return to free-market conditions and an end to quotas, which is the agreed objective of every other European Government.
British Steel is now in such a strong position vis-a-vis its European competitors that it is excellently placed to take advantage of that steady return to free-market conditions. That is another reason for privatising as soon as possible. In the state in which we shall be returning it to the market it will be a dangerous and powerful competitor to the other Europeans.
The hon. Gentleman describes what I have said about Ravenscraig as unsatisfactory, an inadequate assurance, and all the rest of it. I suspect that, politically, the hon. Gentleman is somewhat disappointed that the news about Ravenscraig is so good. When the Government have had to undertake the obligation, we have twice given three-year commitments, and the Opposition made the same remarks about weasel words on both occasions. That obligation has now passed to this profitable corporation and it can say that in its commercial judgment, and subject to the market, there will be steel making at Ravenscraig for at least the next seven years.
"Subject to the market" are not weasel words. As we have discovered over the past few years, in this business and every other, nationalised industries operate in the market. Private industries operate in the market. The world makes its living in the market place. This privatised corporation will make its living in the market place. But it is now so well placed that it can give that assurance, which should come as a considerable reassurance to all those who work in Ravenscraig.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the form of flotation. We intend to float BSC as a single entity. We have taken careful advice, and that is obviously in the interests of the corporation and its owners, the taxpayers. We intend to proceed with that as soon as possible.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. However, is it not a remarkable feat that, over the past several years, when the taxpayer's money has been put into Port Talbot, Llanwern and Ravenscraig, the workers there have responded heroically and are now turning out steel of a quality and at prices that are the best in the world? Is it not sad that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) does not know that, and has not talked to the workers there?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend be aggressive in his approach to Europe, and try to roll back the quotas so that British Steel can take advantage of its success?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks. I believe that the work force at Llanwern, Port Talbot, Ravenscraig and Cleveland all realise that the changes of the past few years were necessary—necessary for their future, for the health of British Steel and for British industry as a whole, because it uses steel. That should be acknowledged, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has acknowledged it.
We intend to take a strong stance in the negotiations with Europe. The present quota systems are now inhibiting British Steel's ability to take advantage of its new competitive position. That cannot continue, and for that reason we are pressing for an early end to quotas. We seem to have substantial support from the other European countries.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that we are, of course, pleased with the success of British Steel, and the achievements made so far? In the light of today's statement, however, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that, in regard to the private sector, which is extremely competitive internationally, we must have certain assurances? We must be assured that the strategic role of steel in the British economy will be secured; that there will be safeguards relating to the percentage of foreign ownership; that the assets will be privatised at a fair and reasonable value, and will not be vulnerable to potential asset strippers; that the work force will have an opportunity both to be consulted about the proposals, and to acquire a stake in the company; and that our relationship with the EEC will acknowledge that we in this country have taken more than our fair share of capacity reductions?
On the particular issue of Ravenscraig, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that, while the assurances, such as they are, are welcome, they are definitely qualified? Does he accept that the commitment of British Steel and the Government to ensure that the mill continues for that seven-year period is dependent on its receiving investment that it has so far been denied? Will he give us an assurance that the mill will receive that investment, and that its seven-year future will be assured.

Mr. Clarke: If by his question about "the strategic role of British Steel" the hon. Gentleman means, "Can we be assured that British Steel will play a vital role in 'UK Limited', and in strengthening the British economy?," I can reassure him. We can be confident of that, because of the results that we are achieving and the likelihood of their being sustained. Making British Steel competitive and returning it to the market place is the best guarantee of the long-term future and success of the corporation.
Of course, we shall be aiming at flotation to receive a fair and reasonable value. We must maximise the return to the taxpayer by returning the corporation to the market in the right way, and we believe that floating it as a single entity is the best way to achieve that. As I have announced today, we are putting in hand the preparations—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister is driving Ted to sleep.

Mr. Clarke: This is not a contentious statement.
I have announced today that we are putting in hand the preparations for privatisation, but the details must be steadily evolved while we take the legislation through the House, and then take the corporation to the market. We shall consider whether there is a case for restricting foreign ownership, but it does not instantly appeal to me. However, I am attracted by the idea of workers being given the opportunity of shareholdings, and we shall consider that carefully. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is also attracted by that idea. Even the hon. Member for Dagenham has been


known to make approving noises about worker shares in the past. Perhaps the Opposition Front Bench is pressing me in the same direction.
As for Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman referred to things being welcome but qualified, which makes it sound as though he has been taking part in too many delicate negotiations about mergers and is losing his assertive edge. They are undoubtedly welcome. It is reassuring that the corporation, which is to be a private company, sees the need for steel making over seven years. There are many other factories about which that could not be said by the owners. The qualifications are commonsense qualifications that every private company, owning any factory anywhere, would make if one asked it about its plant. It would say that it must be subject to market conditions and to commercial considerations, because it is the wise commercial judgment of a company's management that guarantees the future of the company. Investment will be a matter for the private sector company. It will have to decide where to make that investment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members for brief questions? There is to be a business statement, during which many of these questions may be relevant.

Sir John Stradling Thomas: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, which provides hope particularly for the future of both Llanwern and Port Talbot, which are so vital to the Welsh economy. Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that to give them the opportunity that they are ready to grasp he must pursue what he has suggested is his approach to the negotiations with the Common Market regarding the bedevilled quota system? Given the opportunity, Llanwern and Port Talbot can take on the world.

Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks, and I shall bear them in mind next Tuesday when I am in Europe. The quota system was one of those temporary and unpleasant necessities that we should now move to end. When we return to a free market, I am sure that both Port Talbot and Llanwern will be particularly well placed to take advantage of improved market opportunities.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What is the total amount of taxpayers' money that has been invested since this Government came to office in 1979?

Mr. Clarke: We are trying to work out what the total bill has been for past losses and many other kinds of financial cover for BSC. It is a cost that has been largely incurred as a result of foolish decisions taken by past Labour Governments. If the right hon. Gentleman were to table a question, I should try to give him detailed guidance. It is difficult to reach the total, but I can assure him that several billion pounds have been invested in BSC during the last few years. That merely underlines what an achievement it is to be able to come to the House and say that BSC has made a profit of £190 million in half a year and that it can return to the market place.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the seven-year guarantee for Ravenscraig, the two-year guarantee for the hot strip mill and the Scottish long-term option for a purchase in that

country is wonderful news for Scotland, and that it is far better than the Opposition could ever have expected? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that British Steel and the Government deserve many congratulations for turning round an industry that was devastated by the last Labour Government?

Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Opposition were sitting there waiting for bad news about Ravenscraig, but what they have is good news for Ravenscraig. It is good news because of the corporation's own achievements and the present strength of BSC.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Minister aware that Ravenscraig and the other works in my constituency have performed at least as well as any works within the British Steel Corporation? Is he aware that privatisation will plunge the steel industry back into all the uncertainties and inefficiencies of the past, which will have a devastating effect on the steel communities? Is the Minister also aware that it will be grossly inefficient and extremely damaging to Scotland if the Government sell off the British Steel Corporation in such a way that the hot strip mill can be closed in 1989, with a rundown rump of steelmaking being offered for sale at the end of seven years?
If the Government insist on pushing through privatisation, will they allow full facilities for a private bid to be prepared for Ravenscraig, plus sufficient finishing mills and other plant to make it a viable unit that can compete with the rest of the steel industry?

Mr. Clarke: There are always uncertainties in the market place for any product, but it is possible to embark upon those uncertainties with more confidence if there is a profitable and competitive business—as British Steel is. I do not believe that the immediate prospects are as the hon. Gentleman describes them. The outlook for Ravenscraig is more cheerful now than it has been for a long time. Previously, Ravenscraig had to rely on political three-year guarantees. They will no longer be necessary.
There is a problem with hot strip mills, as I frankly disclosed in my statement. There is surplus capacity in the United Kingdom. However, the commercial judgment of the corporation is that it can continue to operate all four strip mills, at least until 1989. Then the private company will have to decide whether to continue with all four. That is what happens in every other industry, and it will inevitably happen in this one.
The question of separate bids does not arise. We have taken clear advice on a variety of options and it is in the best interests of British Steel and the taxpayer that there should be flotation as a single entity. That is by far the most sensible course.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be great satisfaction about this announcement in Wales, where everybody, except the professional moaners, are aware of the immense opportunities that it will open up for the Welsh steel industry?

Mr. Clarke: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. There will also be rejoicing in Wales that the Government have decided not to intervene, on political grounds, as to where there should be investment and where there should be changes. This should be a commercial judgment by BSC, in the best interests of BSC as a whole in England, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that during the steel strike his right hon. Friend Sir Keith Joseph, the then Member for Leeds, North-East, defended his refusal to intervene in the affairs of the British Steel Corporation because there was a taxpayers' stake in it? Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his mandate from today to prevent that taxpayers' stake from becoming profitable for the nation? Furthermore, if the chairman of the British Steel Corporation had had his way in earlier days, Port Talbot and Llanwern would have been destroyed and would have been unable to make a contribution to the steel industry today.

Mr. Clarke: As for our mandate, we seemed to do reasonably well in the last general election, when the Government's policy was to return successful public industries to private ownership. That is what we are proposing to do. As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not believe that there has ever been a serious risk to Port Talbot. Port Talbot is one of the flagship plants of the British Steel Corporation. A great deal of investment has been put into it, and in my opinion it has a secure future. I am also quite sure that in the opinion of the chairman of the British Steel Corporation it has an extremely secure future.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in a moment of humility, commiserate with the Opposition over the fact that they have not been given the opportunity to pretend that they are sorry because something has been lost instead of rejoicing in the fact that something is profitable? Will he remind them, please, that Ravenscraig is profitable because the work force has made it profitable—that it is not some sort of mascot Socialist toy that has to be kept because it is Scottish, that it is being kept because it is good and successful?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the work force at Ravenscraig has made its contribution to the success of BSC. I am sure that the work force at Ravenscraig will be disappointed that the Opposition would prefer bad news about the future of that particular plant, for their political purposes, to the good news that they have just heard.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, may I make it clear to the House that we shall be opposing the privatisation of the steel industry, thereby accurately reflecting the decisions that were taken politically in Scotland and Wales at the last general election. As for Ravenscraig, may I ask for an assurance beyond 1989 for the hot strip mill, since 40 per cent, of the work force at Ravenscraig depends on the hot strip mill? If the Government are genuinely concerned about the future of Ravenscraig, may I ask them to return to the British Steel Corporation and say that the coke ovens at Ravenscraig are in great need of investment, as that would guarantee the continuation of the steel plant?

Mr. Clarke: First, I should tell the hon. Lady that 400 people work at Ravenscraig on the strip mill, although about 200 or 300 other jobs associated with the mill are dependent on it. Over 2,000 other people work in the rest of the plant, so the hon. Lady's figure of 40 per cent, is inflated.
As to the future of the strip mill, it is not possible to look beyond 1989 at the moment. Nobody is saying that it will close; we are saying that at the moment British Steel faces a serious problem with excess capacity. As a result, it is under-utilising all its strip mills, which is damaging efficiency and cannot go on indefinitely unless the market improves. Against that background, it is good news that the corporation has decided that the right commercial course is to keep them all going until at least 1989. It will then have to decide whether the position has improved and what it intends to do.

Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to reflect that not many years ago the steel industry was costing British taxpayers £4 million a day? That money has today been spent on the National Health Service, and is probably much better spent on it than it was on British Steel's works. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the steel workers who live and work in my constituency elected me on a privatisation programme? I look forward to that programme happening, as they do, particularly if they are given a proper share in the stock option later this year.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In 1979–80—its peak year of losses—BSC lost £1·75 billion. My mathematics is inferior to my hon. Friend's, but I calculate that it was costing about £5 million a day in 1979–80, which was part of the great public sector investment that Labour Members say we should be recouping. That money is no longer going from the taxpayer to a loss-making industry, and we are looking forward to privatising a successful industry. BSC is successful in the north-east, which is an area with many problems. The Cleveland plant is a successful and modern one, and its future is enhanced by what it has to offer. I hear what my hon. Friend, says about workers being allowed to participate in the flotation and take an ownership stake in the company that they are serving so well.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister will know that Shotton steelworks in my constituency lost 8,000 jobs in 1980, which was the largest recorded redundancy in western Europe. Does he recollect that last month his ministerial colleague told me that as recently as last year Britain imported £1 billion-worth of hot rolled steel? Some 22 million tons of it have been imported since 1980, at a cost of about £5 billion. Why have we had so many redundancies in the 1980s and such a high level of imports? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot believe that privatisation will assist Britain's problem with heavy imports? He should know that my constituents will not back his proposals.

Mr. Clarke: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I could not help reflecting, when I listened to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) worrying about the uncertainty of the position of 700 people beyond 1989, that in Shotton 8,000 jobs were lost in one set of redundancies at the depths of BSC's problems. As those times are behind us, the present employees of British Steel have a much more secure future to look forward to because of its success.
The hon. Gentleman asked about imports; we also export substantial amounts of steel. There is a competitive market in Europe that we wish to return to. There will be


some imports into Britain to give our users choice, but there will also be exports into western Europe. One of the principal reasons for getting rid of quotas, as my hon. Friends have been urging, is that at the moment they are holding us back from penetrating German, French and other markets. We intend to try to get rid of them.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On behalf of many people on Teesside, particularly those in my constituency, I welcome today's announcement that British Steel is to be privatised. When my right hon. and learned Friend visited Teesside during the summer, did he notice the energetic and competitive spirit that is permeating the work force? Did he not see that not only have we a successful plant on Teesside, which is the largest blast furnace in Europe, but that many of my constituents are eager to compete with international producers, and are sending steel as far as San Francisco and Hong Kong? They look forward to doing that in the private market in the future.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was impressed when I went to Cleveland and saw the fantastically modern facilities and the spectacular giant blast furnace at Redcar. When talking to the work force one felt that they realised they were in a competitive business, and they were eager to compete. One wondered at the transformation that had been wrought in a nationalised industry of this kind. That feeling leads one to consider that the natural conclusion is to make it a private sector company, and I am sure that the people of Cleveland will make a great success of it.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: May I help the Minister and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) with their mathematics? We have lost 45,000 jobs on Teesside since the Government came to office. That figure does not relate only to the steelworks but to the chemical plants and docks. We know what bad news is about, but Labour Members do not celebrate it — we have experienced it. The hon. Members for Stockton South, (Mr. Devlin) and for Langbaurgh said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the steelworks, which he did, and I am sure that he talked to the work force. However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman listened to the work force, because with regard to the plans that the Government are proposing it is worried about what will happen with pensions. I should like to know what guarantees the right hon. and learned Gentleman will offer.

Mr. Clarke: The aspect of pensions will be addressed in the legislation, which will be introduced after Christmas in the current Session of Parliament. The matter of pensions has been raised in every piece of privatisation legislation that has gone through the House. We have enough privatisations behind us to know that the problem of pensions can be satisfactorily addressed. People can be reassured that they will not lose their pension rights as a result of the changes.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members representing steel constituencies have experienced bad news in the past decade? However, we have also had plenty of good news. This will be treated as good news by my constituents who work in the steel industry. Is this not an

outstanding example of how, when the work force and management in a nationalised industry are determined to adjust to the realities of the market place, real results can be achieved? Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all that he can to ensure that the work force is rewarded by having preferential treatment in share applications?

Mr. Clarke: Corby has experienced great job losses in the steel industry, but it has achieved amazing success in attracting alternative employment and getting new development going. As a town, Corby is definitely on the up. The remaining employees of British Steel in Corby will, as my hon. Friend does, take reassurance from today's news. I hope to be able to meet my hon. Friend's request for them to be given an opportunity to participate in the eventual flotation.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Minister explain why, during the election campaign, Ministers came to my constituency and told people that it would be many years before the steelworks was privatised? Does this mean that they were deliberately misleading my constituents, or, more to the point, that, with the failure of the BP flotation, BSC is to be sacrificed to regain some of the Government's lost credibility? What guarantees will the Minister give that the people who work in the industry — whose productivity and sacrifices in jobs and conditions have turned it around—will, at the very last, not be worse off as a result of privatisation?

Mr. Clarke: On several occasions, the previous team of Ministers made it clear that it was the aim of the Government to return British Steel to the private sector as soon as practicable. I do not know whether one of my colleagues expressed pessimism during a visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but perhaps he did not anticipate the remarkable recovery that British Steel has made so quickly. Today's results are a staggering achievement, and it is obvious they are likely to be sustained.
The terms and conditions of the work force will mainly depend on the success of the business. For as long as British Steel continues to go from strength to strength, the work force can look forward to sharing in that.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is very good news for the Welsh economy? It means that, because the Government grasped the nettle and ensured that we had large improvements in productivity at Llanwern and Port Talbot, those plants can look forward to a successful future under private ownership?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The two plants are extremely strong and successful and are likely to attract future investment. They have everything to hope for from the privatisation that we have announced.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When Sir Robert Scholey announced that he wanted to aim for profits of £300 million-plus per year before the industry was set on the road to privatisation, he gave as the main reason for wishing to make such a profit that that is what is required to invest for the future. As a result of the higher levels of profits that are now being achieved, will the Minister tell the House what proposals there are for fixed capital


improvements in the industry, or will the higher profits be put in the reserves ready for privatisation and not invested?

Mr. Clarke: Sir Robert probably did set a figure of £300 million a year as the threshold for privatisation. Today's results of £190 million for a half-year and with the second half-year looking as good as the first show that we are well above that threshold. That is why today's announcement was made. With regard to investments, I am sure that Sir Robert shares the opinion of us all that it is essential that investment is maintained in the steel industry because the markets remain competitive and the quality demanded by customers is ever higher. Until the industry is privatised, investment proposals will have to come to me for approval. There are no formal proposals at the moment, but it is likely that some will be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, unless there is some compelling financial or commercial reason against the proposals, worthwhile investment proposals will receive our approval and will not be delayed by the Government. After privatisation, investment decisions will be entirely a matter for the new privatised company.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many British consumers of steel will welcome his announcement today? Is he aware of the contrast between the losses of £35 million a week under the Labour Government and the £7 million a week profit under a Conservative Government? Perhaps that shows the different approach to enterprise which has resulted in my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement today.

Mr. Clarke: The contrast is symbolic of a great deal that has happened in the British economy over the past eight or nine years. From being one of the disaster areas of the British economy seven or eight years ago, British Steel is now one of our great successes. It is one of the most powerful competitors in steel in western Europe.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Minister accept that, if the ending of steel quotas to which he has referred happened today, under too current circumstances that would benefit BSC enormously with regard to steel making, as BSC would make a massive profit? Is not today's statement more likely to enhance private cartels than competition?

Mr. Clarke: No, I do not think that the statement today has anything to do with private cartels, because the private company will be subject to the same rules on monopolies and trade as any other private company. Only time will tell whether the European steel producers will try to arrange cartels. The present European cartel with the quota system is now operating in a way that inhibits British Steel's growth. I am glad to say that not only I, but all other European Council Ministers agree that we must move within a reasonable time to remove the quotas.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does the Chancellor recall the pledge given in this House on behalf of the Conservative party during proceedings on the Steel Bill in 1966, when we undertook to return the industry to private ownership? Despite the failure during the premiership of the Chancellor's right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to redeem that pledge, does my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor

share my satisfaction that it has fallen to our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to redeem the honour of the Conservative party?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that it has taken a long time, and rather longer than most of us would have wished, to get British Steel back to where it ought to be. I share my hon. Friend's pride in the fact that we have been able to do that because of the achievements in British Steel and because of the changes made in the British economic climate over the past few years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for very brief questions. I should like to try to call hon. Members who have been rising, but it would be helpful if they did not repeat what has been said before and particularly only if they have interests in these matters.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister really expect the public to believe that this privatisation is anything other than an example of a Government of political spivs selling off the last items of the family silver? What comfort can my constituents who work at and depend on Ravenscraig get from paper assurances by a Government who are just about to dump the whole of this vital and strategic industry into the hands of the private sector which has so dramatically failed the industry in the past?

Mr. Clarke: I thought that the Opposition were having a re-think about nationalisation and renationalisation. When the two years are up, I will be interested to see whether there is a commitment to renationalise this or any other industry because the legislation will have been passed and privatisation completed by then. The assurances that I have given are assurances from the British Steel Corporation, the assurances of the new company. According to its commercial judgment, it expects steel making to continue at Ravenscraig for seven years as long as the market demand is sustained as it is at the moment.

Mr. Bowen Wells: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that both hot strip mills are being under-utilised, would not British Steel's correct commercial decision — not its political decision—be to concentrate in one plant, not two? That plant should clearly be in south Wales. Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement today represents yet another example of Welsh and English workers subsidising those in Scotland?

Mr. Clarke: There are four hot strip mills, at Port Talbot, Llanwern, Lackenby in the north-east and Ravenscraig. Certainly at the moment they are all being run below capacity because of the very large surplus of capacity, which sooner or later will have to be addressed by the private sector company unless conditions improve.
I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Government in their wisdom were to take a political decision for some reason that one of those hot strip mills should be favoured at the expense of the others, we would wind up favouring the workers of one nationality against the workers of another. That would be grotesquely unfair. The right thing to do would be to leave it up to the corporation to make its own decision in the light of conditions in 1989.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Supposing they were to get an offer for Ravenscraig, Dalzell and associated works, what would be the Government's likely attitude?

Mr. Clarke: We looked at various options when we considered how to privatise, and we have taken financial advice on a range of options. Our judgment is that we must go for a flotation of the company as a single entity. The idea of any separate bid or flotation of the Scottish part of the company or any other part of the corporation is not practicable nor is it a desirable financial objective. That would be likely to damage the steel industry as a whole and greatly minimise the returns.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if next week's negotiations hasten the abolition of quotas, British Steel will have every prospect of enabling Britain to become a net exporter of steel to the whole of Europe once again? Will that not be the crowning achievement of its recovery?

Mr. Clarke: That is right. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) who has Shotton in his constituency, understandably referred back a few years to traumatic events in his constituency and asked questions which implied that we are afraid of imports from stronger steel makers overseas. That is no longer the position. There are still imports, because users like different sources of supply. British Steel is increasingly an exporter, and the more it goes from strength to strength, the more likely it is to build up its exports. Quotas are now getting in the way.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Minister reflect on the question of capacity as distinct from market share? Will he reflect on the fact that we have lost more than 70,000 jobs in the steel industry? When he tries to reconcile the turnround of the steel industry, will he look at the other side of the balance sheet—at the social costs and the costs in payments of unemployment benefit to those thousands of people?
Can we advise the British Steel Corporation, instead of concentrating on capacity, to talk about a bigger market share? We have lost a massive market share in British Steel in the past eight years. What are we producing in this country today? We do not have the kind of industry that we had before. When we talk about market share, we should remove the cartel from Europe, as that will allow us to get back some of the orders that people have taken—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair for the hon. Gentleman to go on as long as this.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman talked about the market share. One gets into difficulties if one has the capacity to produce vastly more steel than one can sell. That is true of any product. British Steel faced that problem some years ago. The result was that the closure process began while the industry was nationalised—and it started under Labour. As I recall, it was under Labour that the steelworks at Bilston and Ebbw Vale went. That process was inevitable as long as the steel industry did not occupy a secure place in the market. There is still a great deal of excess capacity in western Europe. The figures vary, but the Commission and its experts say that, and there will undoubtedly be closures in other western European countries. We have got our steel corporation

into a much better state than other European countries' industries and we can now look to the future optimistically, with the worst of the change behind us.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the Minister accept that it has taken eight years, about £6 billion of public money and the loss of 70,000 jobs for us to arrive at the present state of affairs? What sort of a policy is it that insists that, although the taxpayer has funded all those losses for eight years, the benefits must be reaped by the private sector, which has contributed very little during that period? Should not the taxpayer be rewarded for his investment?

Mr. Clarke: In the first place, the taxpayer will get the returns on the flotation, which will be some recompense for the considerable losses and costs incurred while the British Steel Corporation was being nursed back to health. Our main consideration has to be the future of British steel —the health of the industry and its ability to produce good quality, low cost steel for British steel users. That will be best achieved if the British Steel Corporation is a private sector company, subject to commercial disciplines in the market place.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister explain to Scottish Members and Scottish steel workers, why, in his announcement of his plans to privatise five integrated plants across the United Kingdom, he found it necessary to single out Ravenscraig as the one plant that is likely to have a limited future and the one plant that the Government would consider hiving off to a separate private sector buyer? Does he not realise that singling out Ravenscraig puts an enormous question mark over its long-term future?

Mr. Clarke: I have a lot of sympathy with that. Every time I go to Scotland, people will talk about nothing but Ravenscraig. They talk about it in terms that suggest that it is a commercial disaster and that it is kept going only by the Government's political guarantees. We have given political guarantees to keep Ravenscraig going. The fact is that the corporation—the owner—has said that in its commercial judgment steel making will be required at Ravenscraig, subject to market conditions, for the next seven years. Because Ravenscraig has always felt itself particularly protected by the Government's guarantees, I felt it necessary to go carefully on the hope that the proposals offer it for the future.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Given the Minister's optimism and the smugness of his Back Benchers, it is obvious to those of us who come from places such as Sheffield, and to all Opposition Members, that another great steel robbery is about to take place. The Minister will know that we have just lost 600 jobs at Stocksbridge Engineering Steels in my constituency. The phrase "subject to market conditions" will loom over the steel industry during this period. Furthermore, I gather that a great tranche of unemployment — about 22,000 job losses—is to come from the EEC. Will any of those job losses occur during the period of the takeover and the robbery? Are the Sheffield works—indeed, all the works in the constituencies of Opposition Members who have stayed to listen to the Minister's statement — to suffer some more?

Mr. Clarke: the business of being subject to the market place and the fact that some job losses still occur in private


steel engineering works and in parts of the steel industry is an inevitable consequence of economic life, whether a company is nationalised or privatised. If one does well in the market place, jobs are secure and additional jobs are created, but jobs are inevitably at risk if one does badly in the market place. I shall not restate that proposition again. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman's fear that the EEC is about to inflict another 22,000 job losses is related to the belief that is held by some that the European Community determines whether steelworks should be closed. That is most emphatically not the case. There is no question of the Commission or the Community next week determining the future of any British plant. While the industry is nationalised, that is entirely a matter for the British Government, but as there will be no change in configuration until the industry is privatised, such closures will be a matter for the private sector British company in the years beyond privatisation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister believe that the new privatised British Steel Corporation will be any more vigorous in its pursuit of economies and higher productivity than the nationalised industry? If so, does that not spell danger for plants on the periphery of the United Kingdom, such as those in Workington, which, although highly profitable, might not feature prominently in any configuration demanded by shareholders at an annual general meeting?

Mr. Clarke: The corporation has been pursuing higher productivity and greater efficiency for the past eight years with considerable success, so that the amount of liquid steel produced by the British Steel Corporation is not much less than it was in 1979 although the corporation has roughly one third of the work force that it had then.
That was an inevitable process if the industry was to survive in an ever more competitive market for ever more high quality steel. Success in achieving greater efficiency and the profitability of producers give the best assurance to all those who work for the British Steel Corporation. That process must be sustained. It cannot stop, whether the corporation is publicly or privately owned. The world gets ever more competitive, productivity levels increase everywhere and technology changes — technology has changed very rapidly in the steel industry—but if BSC does as well in the years ahead as it has in the past few years, everyone can feel much more confident about its future.

Mr. Paul Flynn: A tribute has been paid to the great sacrifices made by the work force and the families of those in the steel-working communities. Will the Minister urge, as an act of natural justice, that before privatisation goes ahead, the profits to which the

communities have contributed enormously will be used specifically to ensure that there is a continuous annealing plant at Llanwern and a second continuous casting plant at Port Talbot? Those are essential if the competitiveness of the industry and the security of British steelworkers' jobs are to be guaranteed for the future.

Mr. Clarke: First, I join in the hon. Gentleman's tribute. On investment at Port Talbot and Llanwern and more continuous casting in that part of the country, British Steel will have in the first place to put some formal proposals to me if it has such plans while it remains in public ownership. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall examine carefully any such proposals and that I realise that it would be quite wrong to delay good and justifiable investment proposals. Port Talbot and Llanwern are very good plants, but they need continuous investment if they are to sustain themselves in the future.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Why should those of us interested in Ravenscraig feel reassured when the guarantee for that plant is being downgraded to a qualified commercial requirement, and when even that is subject to market conditions? What are the Ravenscraig workers to make of a pledge from a Government who are determined to shed responsibility for the industry and who accept that the privatised steel corporation may sell off or close the plant at any time? Why should the workers trust the Minister when he will give no promises for the vital strip mill capacity beyond 1989?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement not a fraudulent front, given that the reality will be further uncertainty for Ravenscraig — a plant that deserves better and which is now to be left to the profit motive and the commercial judgment of business men, who, as the Minister has heavily underlined, are already under pressure to shed further capacity?

Mr. Clarke: I find the hon. Gentleman's reaction very difficult to understand. In talking about the future of any manufacturing business, he really cannot be so dismissive of market conditions and the commercial judgment of business men. I cannot believe that if, heaven help us, the hon. Gentleman was ever responsible for these matters, he would start giving assurances about a steel business that disregarded market conditions or guarantees that he would ignore commercial judgments. That would be an act of irresponsible folly. Facing up to market conditions and to the reality of commercial judgments, the corporation can give such an assurance for the next seven years. That is very good news indeed for Ravenscraig and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman really expected any such assurance.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Health and Medicines Bill. Motion on the British Film Fund Agency (Dissolution) Order.
At ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER — Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Motion on the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1988–89 (HC No. 163)
Afterwards a debate on EC documents relating to fisheries arrangements for 1988. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER — Remaining stages of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill.
Motions on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 3) and (No. 4) Orders.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 11 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Until Seven o'clock, Private
Members' motions, followed by progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
The House will wish to know that it is proposed that, subject to the progress of business, the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 18 December, until Monday 11 January.

Debate on Wednesday 9 December:

Relevant European Community Documents:


(a) 6388/87
Market in fishery products


(b) 9585/87
Fish guide prices


(c) Unnumbered
Fisheries: Total allowable catches and quotas 1988


(d) Unnumbered
Reciprocal fisheries agreement with Norway 1988

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-i (1987–88), para 5
(b)HC 43-vi (1987–88), para 2
(c)HC 43-viii (1987–88), para 5
(d)HC 43-viii (1987–88), para 6.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Arising from the statement on the British steel industry, the announcement of results was clearly a tribute to the efforts and sacrifices of workers and management, past and present, but the announcement of future privatisation was an insult to those people and the general public without whom we would not have a steel industry of any description in Britain. Before the legislation comes forward, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a full debate on the strategy of the British steel industry, so that the House, the general public and steel communities can get a much clearer idea of what BSC and the Government propose for the industry in Scotland, Wales and England? It was not evident from the statement that we have just heard.
After the exchanges in the House last night on the future of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it will be highly unsatisfactory if the issue is not debated on the Floor of the House before the House goes into recess for Christmas. Will he assure us that there will be such a debate?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early and comprehensive statement to the House on severe weather payments? There is a great need to take early action, for pensioners and others will be at risk as the weather gets much colder over the next six weeks or so.
A month ago, I pointed out to the Leader of the House that, through the operation of their mean and clumsy local government finance policies, the Government are trying to make a profit out of the aid provided to regions that have to meet the large and unavoidable costs that arose from the storm damage in October. The right hon. Gentleman will have now seen the letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment from the chief executive of the London borough of Barnet, which includes the Prime Minister's constituency. That letter shows that the Treasury has profited to the extent of £70,000 on every £100,000 that has been spent by the council on repairing storm damage and that ratepayers will have to find £170,000 for every £100,000 that is actually used for repairs. The chief executive said:
It is quite wrong that the Treasury should profit from a public catastrophe.
Does the Leader of the House accept that principle? Will he now arrange for a debate to examine what must have been just about the most barefaced con trick in the lifetime of a Government who have made a speciality of sharp practice?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, despite their stubborn and undemocratic refusal to provide proper time to debate the Education Reform Bill this week, the Government will change their ways and allow at least two full days for the Second Reading debate on the poll tax Bill?
Also on the poll tax Bill, when will the regulations setting out the income levels for the operation of any poll tax rebate be published? Clearly, it is essential — [Interruption.] Shut up! [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is sitting below the Gangway, is one of the biggest ignoramuses in the House.

Mr. Marlow: Get on with it, red-headed windbag.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: He constantly disrupts the business of the House.

Mr. Marlow: Get on with the question, you twerp.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly to shout from a sedentary position like that. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On the subject of the poll tax, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when we will have the regulations setting out the income levels for the operation of any rebate system that is to be operated under the poll tax Act? It is a matter of considerable importance. Clearly, rates and abatements will be of considerable importance to all hon. Members when they consider whether to support the Bill.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Welsh rate support grant will be announced to the House?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take points of order afterwards.

Mr. Wakeham: The Leader of the Opposition asked me six questions. I cannot promise him an additional debate on British Steel, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that legislation would be introduced after Christmas. I have no doubt that such matters will be debated considerably in the House in the months to come.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I am pleased that the majority of Select Committees were established at a late hour last night. The Committee of Selection hopes to reach a conclusion on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at its meeting on Wednesday. When the Committee of Selection has reached a conclusion, I shall arrange for a debate to take place before Christmas, if that is the wish of the House.
With regard to severe weather payments, I cannot offer the right hon. Gentleman a debate or a statement. Of course, this Government established the first properly based scheme of cash help during exceptionally cold weather. In 1985–86 expenditure on heating additions alone was about £430 million, £140 million more in real terms than was spent in 1978–79.
With regard to storm damage, the right hon. Gentleman could not have read or heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday. He did not accept the allegations that were made by the gentleman to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The Local Government Finance Bill will be published tomorrow. I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's request for a two-day Second Reading debate, and will arrange for that matter to be further discussed through the usual channels, I hope with a positive result.
I recognise the importance of rebates. I shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State to see whether the regulations can be published as soon as possible.
I shall arrange for the Welsh statement to be made next week.

Mr. Timothy Raison: My right hon. Friend gave a fairly encouraging response to the request for a two-day debate on the Local Government Finance Bill. It is not only on the Opposition side but on the Government side of the House that there is a strong feeling that we need two days to debate such an important measure.

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly accept my right hon. Friend's point.

Mr. James Wallace: There is anxiety on this Bench that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be set up. We would welcome a debate on the matter before the House goes into recess for Christmas.
Surely the Leader of the House is aware of all hon. Members' concern about the developing tragedy in Ethiopia. When the crisis arose two years ago, Her Majesty's Government responded in terms of support

from the Royal Air Force and by making intervention food available. Is it possible to have a statement next week on what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to relieve the crisis in Ethiopia?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter and the concern felt on both sides of the House. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, and he will have to decide when it is appropriate to make any statement, if it should be helpful to do so.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of hon. Members of all parties who wished to speak on the Education Reform Bill on Tuesday were disappointed? Will he give urgent consideration not only to giving an extra day for debates of that magnitude, but to having an early debate on giving the Chair the power to limit speeches to 10 minutes in such debates? That would give hon. Members of all parties an opportunity to participate.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend has said and we shall see what we can do about it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Andrew Faulds.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Undeserved, Sir.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the incompetence of British Telecom percolates into even these premises? Does he realise that we spent some millions of pounds on a new telephone system two or three years ago but that I am having frequent experience of malfunctioning—[Laughter.] — the telephone system is malfunctioning when I attempt to ring in to this building. The other day, having waited five minutes for a call into the building, I got a recorded message saying that nobody was available to answer it. Does he further understand that, when I raised this with the telephone supervisor, she claimed no knowledge of the existence of such a recording? I have written to the Serjeant at Arms to seek his advice on this matter but I think that the Leader of the House has some responsibility to inquire into why this extremely expensive, newly installed equipment is so extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly do my best to help the hon. Gentleman with the malfunctioning of the telephone system, but other things are beyond me. I shall have a word with the Serjeant at Arms about the reply that will go to the hon. Gentleman. If there is anything further that I can do, I shall assist him, because I recognise the inconvenience.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend think that there will be an opportunity to discuss British investment in Japan before we rise for Christmas? Does he accept that that is a timely question, given the welcome announcement earlier this week of the Japanese Government's agreement to accept Cable and Wireless's investment in an international telecommunications development as a result of representations made not only by Ministers but by many hon. Members of all parties?

Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that that would be an excellent subject for the Christmas Adjournment debate or for the proceedings after the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on Tuesday.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect a little on his answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the setting-up of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? We accept in good faith his statement about a debate, but he is not unaware that there is no great veil of secrecy concerning the usual channels. If we accept the strictures made last night by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that the Government must have a majority on the Committee, that means that five Government Members must serve on it. We have already had statements from one who will not serve and another whose responsibility for serving will be undermined by the statement that he will destroy the Select Committee.
It is all very well for the Leader of the House to promise a debate on that, but what assurances will he give us that he will use his good offices through the Government Chief Whip to ensure that the Committee is set up, because its malfunction and non-existence is an affront to the people of Scotland who require the Select Committee to examine the functions of the Executive and Administration in Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: The usual channels are not unaware of the problems, and have sometimes, but not always, achieved solutions to them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we shall do our best to find a solution. We can certainly have a debate on it, and the House must make the ultimate decision.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: In view of the anxieties about education, will my right hon. Friend arrange a one-hour debate, preferably in Opposition time, on the concept of brevity in the use of language, which would undoubtedly assist the Leader of the Opposition to assist the House?

Mr. Wakeham: If it would not inconvenience my hon. and learned Friend, the Christmas Adjournment or the proceedings after the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill might accommodate a speech from him on that point.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have heard reports that a settlement of the dispute about Opren, the drug that caused so much damage to so many people, is imminent? However, the settlement will be for only £2·75 million for 1,500 severely disabled people. If the settlement goes through, it will be scandalous, because on average the money received will be £2,000 for each person. Indeed, the whole sum is less than one person got in America and is less than the lawyers will receive for conducting the case. Could we please have a statement next week, and could the Minister for Health intervene to press the company to give a fair, just and proper settlement rather than this niggardly and despicable imposition on gravely disabled people?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's continuing concern about such matters. Obviously, I cannot say anything about that issue, but I shall ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's concern is conveyed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider last week's call for a debate on the workings of the usual channels, following the seventh resignation of an Opposition Whip in six months? Will he recommend to his right hon. Friend the Patronage

Secretary either the secondment of a Government Whip to help sort out the Opposition office or the recruitment of a special adviser such as Lord Cairns?

Mr. Wakeham: That applies to hon. Members of all parties. I hope that we shall be able to continue the usual channels. I do not believe that it is best to deal with this in public.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week about the composition of the Cabinet, in view of today's press reports that the Secretary of State for Scotland may be shifted to the job of Secretary of State for Social Services and that a member of the House of Lords may take over as governor-general of Scotland? Will the Leader of the House tell the Prime Minister that such an appointment from the other place would treat with absolute contempt the vast majority of people in Scotland who rejected the Government at the ballot box and who want a devolved Parliament instead of being ruled by the dispirited remnants of the Scottish Tory aristocracy?

Mr. Wakeham: Cutting out the flowery part of that question, I advise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not arrange a statement next week about the composition of the Cabinet. If any of the rumours that I have heard are in any way connected with the health of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, I can advise the House that he is considerably better. He is now at home, is making good progress and hopes to be back here soon.

Mr. Andrew Mac-Kay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for some considerable time, many of us have received representations from companies and individuals in our constituencies who are frustrated by the postal service? Bearing in mind the present threatened dispute at Christmas, is it not time that we had a debate so that we can make it clear that we do not want just to suspend the monopoly of the Post Office, but to break it once and for all?

Mr. Harry Ewing: I hope that your postman reads that.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but at present I do not believe that a debate on that subject would be helpful. The two sides are still talking. We hope that good sense will prevail and that a sensible settlement is reached so that the threat of disruption to the Christmas mail is lifted.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 404 about the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh which I and 33 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have signed?
[That this House expresses extreme concern at the findings of the Medical Executive Committee of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, which illustrate the consequences of failing to provide sufficient funding of vital upgrading work at the hospital; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that Lothian Health Board is provided with the necessary funding to avoid the dire consequences of failing to take action on the projects detailed in the report.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a new style of debate, in which I will readily concede that the health board has made available £400,000 of new money, provided that the Minister will admit that £7 million to £8 million is needed to make that world-famous teaching hospital fit for the 1980s, and provided that the Minister


will also accept that the crisis that is predicted in that hospital has been predicted not by politicians but by the medical staff who work there and know what is going on in the hospital?

Mr. Wakeham: I have seen the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The Lothian health board is spending £18·5 million this financial year on the priorities that it has identified for improving or rebuilding its hospitals. That represents about 20 per cent, of the capital resources that are available to health boards in Scotland. The board is examining further new developments, including the replacement of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, and is working closely with the medical executive committee and the local management to identify short to medium-term expenditure priorities at the Royal Infirmary.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to enable me to raise points coming to me from many constituents and, I know, to colleagues with constituents in a similar position on the subject of Labour councils which have contributed money from their pension funds to News on Sunday which has totally collapsed, with the consequent loss of their money? Since these Labour councils, certainly in the case of Ealing, were advised that it was illegal to make such payments — £250,000 in this case — ought not this matter to be debated by the House as a means of looking after those people, many of them very poor, whose money has been taken from them by this means?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to raise it in one of the debates on Tuesday, either on the Christmas Adjournment motion or in the proceedings after the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House consult early-day motion 319?
[That a Select Committee of an agreed number of honourable Members be established to examine the current state of sport in Britain, the adequacy and deployment of its resources, its competitiveness at home and abroad, the facilities which it provides for both participants and spectators, its investment requirements, Government support, sponsorship, and promotion as well as any current or requested legislative change; and that the Committee be empowered to take evidence and report to the House from time to time.]
Will he consider the possibility of setting up a Select Committee on sport? In the meantime, would he make available an opportunity for a major debate on the state of British sport, including such topical matters as the increasing tendency towards sponsorship of sport by breweries? Would he agree that this is a matter of considerable public concern which extends beyond sport into wider aspects of society?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that sport is an important subject and that it is right from time to time to have debates on it in the House. As I have already indicated to one of my hon. Friends, I am looking for a time which might be available for such a debate.
As regards Select Committees, it is, of course, the Select Committee on the Environment that covers sport, in so far as it is one of the departmental Select Committees. It would be quite a major change, which the House would

have to consider very carefully, if we were to change from the departmental Select Committees that were set up to cover all Departments and start increasing the number of specialist Select Committees, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I would be interested in other views on that, but it would need a lot of consideration before we did it.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing anger in parts of the country like my own, where parliamentary representation is, and has been for a considerable time, 100 per cent. Conservative, at the extraordinary antics of members of the Labour party who purport to believe that they have some kind of special mandate in Scotland, which not only allows them to take up a great deal of the time of the House in political posturing, but, if persisted in, will merely confirm the fact that the party of which they are such a vociferous part has no chance whatever of forming the Government of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Wakeham: The essentially bogus nature of the so-called Scottish mandate has been exposed many limes in the House in recent weeks.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House find time before the recess to discuss the topic of British Coal housing? In Nottinghamshire, over 3,000 people are currently facing the privatisation of their homes. Contrary to what is being said in statements by British Coal, it is not always the case that the sitting tenant is allowed to buy in these circumstances. British Coal is currently refusing to accept an offer of over £7 million, put together by a consortium of housing associations. It is vital that this matter is discussed in an attempt to offer these people security in their old age, particularly before Christmas and before the cold winter sets in.

Mr. Wakeham: I have a feeling that the main responsibility for the matters with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned lies, with British Coal, but if he were to seek to raise it on the Christmas Adjournment motion or in the proceedings after the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill I have no doubt that he would get an answer.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 331 in my name and that of hon. Members on all sides about the deplorable publication Holocaust News?
[That this House views with repugnance the publication, Holocaust News, the aim of which is to deny the events of the Holocaust as "lies, exaggeration and preposterous tales," which have been "perpetrated by Zionist-Jewry's stunning propaganda machine"; considers its nation-wide distribution to schools, local councils, private addresses, honourable Members and many others as a clear attempt to stir up racial hatred contrary to the Public Order Act 1986; and urgently calls upon the Government to take appropriate action.]
Will he accept from me that I have now sent to the Solicitor-General counsel's opinion which suggests that there is a very strong case for the prosecution of this document? Will he arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House next week?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government regard this type of publication, which attempts to distort history, as wholly repugnant. The decision on whether a prosecution could be brought under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is one for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law


Officers, not the Government. I understand that the prosecuting authorities have considered this publication and have decided that there is no basis for prosecution under section 19. I will, however, refer my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House remain in his place after business questions and listen to the debate on the Public Accounts Committee's reports and any recommendations arising there from which relate to keeping Government expenditure under scrutiny?
Will he also consider the Procedure Committee report relating to the dates of recesses and allow Members to know well in advance, particularly for the summer recess, when the House will rise and resume?
When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to set up the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall listen to as much of the debate as I am able to, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be here, and I shall have an opportunity of talking to him afterwards.
With regard to the Procedure Committee reports, I am at the moment considering those that arose in the last Parliament and I will report to the House as soon as I can.
As to the dates of recesses, that is one of the recommendations that we are considering.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since 1975 there have been 11 Bills on the reform of the abortion law, all of which have had substantial support in the House but have been obstructed during their passage. As the Abortion Act 1976 had tacit Government support in its progress through the House, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider, if the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) receives its Second Reading on 22 January, whether the Government can give support to allowing the Bill to come to fruition, if that is the will of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I will continue to consider these things, but the policy of the Government has been to be rather generous in the amount of time that they allocate to private Members' Bills but not, in the interests of fairness to all sides of the House and all points of view, to give specific additional time. That is basically the policy that I think we should adopt in this case.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the light of early-day motions 238, 253, 272, 273 and 286, and in the light of the failure of the Prime Minister to make any attempt to answer uncomplicated questions from myself and, more important, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) who is a QC, does the Leader of the House not think that the way out of this problem is to announce next week the setting up of a tribunal, as he is empowered to do under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, to examine under oath Mr. T. P. Abraham, Sir Robert Armstrong, Miss Collette Bowe, Sir Brian Hayes, Mr. Richard Mottram, Mr. John Mogg, Mr. John Michel, Mr. Bernard Ingham, Mr. Charles Powell and Sir Clive Whitmore to clear up this issue?

[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from

behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27 January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign. …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning. It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3 January and 27 January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]

[That this House notes that the Member for Alder shot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, the Right honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]

[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However, at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. …He (Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3 January and 27 January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]

[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years— A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170 considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]

[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She


was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present. …Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak 's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." ' One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing further to say on this matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder if my right hon. Friend—and I am asking for a debate— can tell those who are supposed to be in authority over the Church but who, according to today's issue of Crockford's, have lost their authority in ecclesiastical and theological matters, that they will be constitutionally extremely ill advised to dabble in secular affairs to the extent of threatening the Government's democratic mandate in the other place.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point as he frequently does, but I do not think that I have anything to add that relates to the business for next week.

Mr. John Home Robertson: May I draw the attention of the House to item No. 30 on the remaining Orders of the Day, standing in the name of the Government Chief Whip, which should have enabled the Scottish Grand Committee and the Labour majority on it to deal with the Government's plans to dismantle the education system in Scotland, without disturbing the slumbers of people like the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who complained earlier about Scottish activities?
Is the Leader of the House aware that the leader of the Liberal party made it impossible for the Scottish Grand Committee to consider that important subject, apparently because Liberal Members think it more important to do

their Christmas shopping next Monday than to deal with the subject of education in Scotland? Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to hide behind the apron strings of the leader of the Liberal party, or will the Government take steps to ensure that the Scottish Grand Committee can consider important subjects of that kind?

Mr. Wakeham: I understood that the matter in dispute was where the Committee should meet, rather than the subject that was to be discussed. The Government have behaved in a perfectly proper and constitutional manner. An objection has been taken to the proposal, and that is perfectly understandable.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a growing despair among the assessors in Scotland who have the job of drafting the register for the so-called community charge or poll tax? There is a growing despair among the officials who will have to deal with the collection of the poll tax and a growing despair among the officials who will have to draft the plans for the rebate scheme. Is he aware that that despair stems from the fact that the orders that have given the officials the power to do any of the things I have mentioned have not come before this House, and that therefore those officials have no power to perform their tasks? Is the Leader of the House aware that many of the officials believe that the poll tax is at least six months behind schedule for implementation in Scotland and that, unless the orders are placed before the House within the next few weeks, implementation on 1 April 1989 is impossible?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is discharging all his obligations in an exemplary fashion. Of course I will draw to his attention the advice tendered to me by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.Maxton).—

Mr. Maxton: Not me, but by the officials.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider what the hon. Member for Cathcart has said eind place what due weight he should upon those remarks.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment that will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on Tuesday, 8 December.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Monday next, 7 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two topics to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose name are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will appear on the list. Some debates may not last the full time alloted to them and it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Postal Services

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The danger to postal services over Christmas arising from the Government's intervention in the dispute over working hours in the Post Office where talks have failed, and the fact that yesterday the Government announced their intention to suspend the Postmaster-General's or the Government's monopoly.
Yesterday, you rebuked me, Mr. Speaker, for seeking to challenge your ruling by making points relating to the role of Parliament in this dispute. You said, Mr. Speaker —it is not an uncommon argument to come from the Chair—that there were other opportunities when these matters could be raised.
But the impact of a postal strike upon the whole community—upon individuals relying on the Christmas post, upon the business community and others—will be enormous. To put a question to the Prime Minister, to put a question on the business statement, to seek half an hour on the Consolidated Fund at midnight or a word on the Christmas Adjournment does not meet up, in my submission, to the enormity of what might happen as a direct result of the Government's intervention.
Normally, under Standing Order No. 20, Members rise and make a general argument. However, in this instance, I address my arguments specifically and exclusively to you, Sir. Standing Order No. 20 was designed to allow the House of Commons to turn its mind urgently to matters that affect the whole community, but for which there was no provision in the timetable of the House. During my 37 years in this House—and tomorrow is the anniversary of the day when I entered the House — I have drawn attention to the fact that the House must be able to discuss matters of urgency of this nature.

Mr. Speaker: One minute more.

Mr. Benn: Often, if a matter is raised before it happens the ruling is that it is hypothetical; if a matter is raised when it happens the ruling is that it is too delicate to debate. After an event has occurred often the ruling is that it is too late to debate it.
Postal workers work 48 hours a week. The Government have threatened to lift their monopoly and they want to privatise services. The Secretary of State responsible for those matters does not even sit in this House. The people whom we represent depend on the postal services, appreciate the work of those who deliver the post and will not understand, and neither will the public, if this House cannot find time to discuss this matter.
The reputation of Parliament depends on being able to discuss urgent matters. When people talk about disorder in the House or disrespect for Parliament I submit that such problems arise partly because the rules of the House are very often interpreted in such a way as to prevent urgent matters from coming to the attention of Parliament and the public.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the


House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the current situation in the Post Office dispute".
I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, as I listened with care to his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that my sole duty when considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or Monday. I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the criteria laid down in that Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of my refusal to hear him yesterday, may I say that there are other opportunities whereby he may be able to discuss this extremely important matter. Perhaps I might suggest that the Consolidated Fund is one such opportunity.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, 122 questions were put down for the Prime Minister and there were two specific questions requiring specific answers that were not general or constituency questions. Those questions appeared in the top four of the ballot. Statistically, that sort of thing is likely to happen once every 20 years. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any bias in the ballot in favour of specific questions or, if not, whether you yourself think that there should be some bias.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows that it is a ballot. I would welcome his attendance at the shuffle that takes place at five minutes past four every day. Many hon. Members have been to witness this phenomenon and I suggest that he does exactly the same. He will then see how fair it is.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is true that two specific questions came out of the list today. However, the significant thing is that those questions are put down a fortnight in advance. I make no point about the ballot; I assume that it is straight and above board.
The second specific question had been down for a fortnight and therefore the Prime Minister had a fortnight in which to consider what her answer would be. The key thing was that, after that fortnight's deliberation, she refused to answer. What is the point of putting down such detailed questions to the Prime Minister—previously she bragged about being able to answer any questions that were thrown at her, unlike previous Prime Ministers— when, after a fortnight's deliberation, she cannot come up with a decent answer? She is frightened of giving one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that that is not a question of order in the House. Every right hon. and hon. Member must take responsibility for what he or she says provided that it is in order.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order about the conduct of hon. Members in the House and about which there has been some concern. May I apologise straightaway for raising this matter in the absence of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), but if hon. Members ask a question during a statement I assume that they do what I do and sit in the Chamber for the remainder of the proceedings on that statement.
It was noticeable today that the hon. Member for Eastbourne launched a fairly scathing, personal attack on the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Is not the procedure and custom of the House that, if an hon. Member intends to refer in such terms to another right hon. or hon. Member, it is good manners and customary to give that person notice? I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, will remind hon. Members of that practice?
It was noticeable that the Prime Minister sat right through the private notice question and right through the statement on the steel industry until the attack was made. As soon as it had been made and dealt with, she immediately left. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an obligation on you to stop this House being used as


some sort of backyard in which the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and other Conservative Members can hang out the Tory party's dirty washing.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is a convention in the House that we do not refer to each other in terms of an attack without giving due notice. I hope that hon. Members would never attack other hon. Members anyway, without good reason for doing so—and certainly not in order to make cheap points.

BILLS PRESENTED

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Ian Lang, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Secretary Ridley and Mr. John Major, presented a Bill to establish a body having functions relating to housing; and, as respects Scotland, to make further provision with respect to houses let on tenancies; to confer on that body and on persons approved for the purpose the right to acquire from public sector landlords certain houses occupied by secure tenants; to make further provision about rent officers and the administration of housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. John Major, Mr. Michael Howard and Mr. Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to create community charges in favour of certain authorities, to create new rating systems, to provide for precepting by certain authorities, and levying by certain bodies, to make provision about the payment of grants to certain authorities, to require certain authorities to maintain certain funds, to make provision about the administration of the financial affairs of certain authorities, to abolish existing rates, precepts and similar rights, to abolish rate support grants and supplementary grants for transport purposes, to make amendments as to certain grants, to make certain amendments to the law of Scotland as regards community charges, rating and valuation, to provide for the establishment of valuation and community charge tribunals, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Public Accounts

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not been able to select the amendment on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett); but the substance of the amendment may be canvassed during the course of a speech if an hon. Member is successful in catching the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 15th and 19th to 52nd Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1985–86, of the 1st to 19th Reports of Session 1986–87 and of the Treasury Minutes on those Reports (Cmnd. 9846, 9859, 9917 and 9924, and Cm. 138, 177, 224 and 236), with particular reference to the following Reports of Session 1985–86—
Nineteenth, Expenditure on motorways and trunk roads;
Twenty-fifth, Prison building programmes;
Forty-fourth, Preventive medicine;
Forty-fifth, Financial control and accountability of the Metropolitan Police;
Fiftieth, Vehicle Excise Duty evasion and enforcement.
This is an annual debate; the last one was held on 3 July last year, when we had 30 reports to consider. Before that, on 24 October 1985, we had 51 reports; and on 20 March 1984, 46. This time, over a slightly longer period, we have a record 54 reports and eight Government replies. As on the past two occasions, we have chosen to highlight five reports, although many others may be mentioned in the course of the debate.
My first pleasant duty is to thank the Members of the Committee. They do dedicated work. There is a terrific amount of reading to be done, and I am delighted that the Committee regards its work with enthusiasm and that it is dedicated to the large amount of reading that is involved. Four of the members of the Committee retired or were defeated at the last general election, and we have given our thanks to them. We also had on the Committee for part of the time covered by the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who was recently appointed Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission; and we welcomed new Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam), the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and, for a short stay, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who was appointed in July but discharged last Friday because of his new post on the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was instrumental in bringing about so many of these changes, as it was he who did the research into the last century and discovered that the Comptroller and Auditor General had been a proper Officer of the House, responsible only to this House. That was what prompted the Norman St. John-Stevas Bill — the National Audit Act 1983—which reinstated the position as of before. As I said, my hon. Friend has been appointed to an Opposition Front Bench post, and, for the same reason,


we are losing my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
The great thing about the Committee's work is that its reports are unanimous. That is not to say that we have been emasculated in a party political sense. We remain politicians, deeply conscious of our allegiance to our parties and of the need and importance of party politics. However, we also recognise that we cannot allow the taxpayer to get anything less than full value for the money that is spent on his behalf. Our very unanimity transcends problems of party allegiance, and they do not appear in the work of the Committee. So, whenever our reports are discussed and our recommendations are noted, we always say that the most important thing is value for money, and that always remains our objective.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a member of the Committee and is always welcome to attend. Traditionally, however, he comes only at the beginning of the Session, and rarely thereafter.
The National Audit Office and the Committee form a partnership. The Committee depends on the investigations undertaken by the National Audit Office, but we go beyond them and report to Parliament. Every year, we discuss the programme of the National Audit Office in the Committee; we discuss matters that concern and interest us and we make suggestions about matters that deserve further examination.
The creation of the National Audit Office in 1983 was of enormous importance. It has changed the whole basis of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team. Of course, the distinguished Comptroller and Auditor General appointed before that time—in 1982— was Sir Gordon Downey, who is due to retire at the end of this year. His career was spent mainly in the Treasury, and at one time he was deputy head of the central policy review staff. So he covered the six years that included the transition from the Exchequer and Audit Department to the new National Audit Office, which was brought in by the National Audit Act 1983. He has been a distinguished civil servant and has become an even more distinguished Comptroller and Auditor General. He is an Officer of the House, and the House feels enormous gratitude for the work that he has done. The Public Accounts Committee feels deeply indebted to him for the way in which he carries out his work and has effected the transition. Instead of the bare, minimal notes to the appropriation accounts, we now have these reports which go into the matters under discussion thoroughly and enable us to understand the activity of the Department with which we are concerned.
The National Audit Office has substantially increased the number of reports dealing with value for money, and we expect that about half of its reports in the future will deal with that subject, thus ensuring that all areas of central Government are investigated regularly. Of course, there are two aspects to the work of the National Audit Office. We want value for money but, even more important, there is a need to ensure that when Parliament votes certain moneys they go to the persons to whom Parliament intends they should go and are spent for the purposes that Parliament intends. That is the crucial aspect that we have to control; nothing comes before it. We know full well, by reference to many other countries, that once people become involved in fraud and corruption,

and they take hold in a country, department, activity or office, it is extremely difficult — sometimes almost impossible—to root them out.
We take our responsibilities seriously. We know full well that, having satisfied ourselves as far as we can that things are going according to principles that we lay down, other matters pertaining to value for money are of great importance.

Mr. Michael Latham: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's outstanding work. Will he confirm that it should be well understood outside the House that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is his report, and that that of the Public Accounts Committee is ours — and that they are by no means always the same?

Mr. Sheldon: I fully accept that; I was going to deal with the important difference between those reports. One is the investigation which takes place within the Department or activity concerned, and which lays out the facts, as they have been agreed, between the National Audit Office and the Department or organisation that it is investigating. Our report examines the role of the people concerned and makes our judgments upon them.
We have one big advantage that many people outside the House do not fully appreciate. It is that we are able not only to examine but to make recommendations, If those recommendations are not adhered to, not only do we have a debate such as this in the House, but we can ask civil servants or accounting officers to return to the Committee and give us their reasons why they have not carried out certain matters. The important aspect of this is well known in the Civil Service. It is that those concerned know full well that their reputation as responsible, active and fully adequate civil servants depends to a considerable extent upon the way in which they follow the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee about the way in which they should dispose of taxpayers' money. It is right that they should be influenced by our judgment on important matters like this.
The one thing that we know about the Civil Service is that it has a superb grapevine and that the information available to one Department rapidly spreads throughout the service. The abilities of the people who come before us and the way in which they have accounted for public money is soon understood and known throughout the Civil Service.
The National Audit Office has produced improved financial management systems in Government. It now has a more professional staff. Many years ago when I was a new member on the Public Accounts Committee the paucity, almost the absence, of accountants in the old Exchequer and Audit Department was astonishing. Nowadays most of the people responsible for accounts have professional qualifications. Of course, that brings problems because they are much more attracted to the private sector, to the private accountancy firms. However, the fact that so many are moving from the National Audit Office to private firms—although that brings problems of wastage and extra recruitment — is at least an indication that we have people who are respected and acknowledged throughout the accountancy profession.
The National Audit Office has moved to new accommodation. It was a good purchase that was well carried out, the accommodation is well used, and it has


brought most of the London National Audit Officer staff together. It is most important that the National Audit Office is independent of the Civil Service because, of course, it is now responsible to the House. We must understand the nature of that relationship. Matters such as recruitment and pay are dealt with by the National Audit Office supervised by the Public Accounts Commission and advice is tendered by the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, it has an independent role and it is right that that should be so, given that it examines the work of Government and the expenditure of money by Government.
The new Comptroller and Auditor General is soon to be appointed by a motion for addressing the House, to be moved by the Prime Minister with my agreement as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I could hardly finish this part of my speech without thanking the Clerk to the Committee, Simon Patrick, and the previous clerk, John Rose.
The Northern Ireland Audit Office is also part of our responsibility. Its expenditure is much less, but it faces all the problems of the United Kingdom Departments together with other problems that are unique to the Province. Denis Calvert, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, and his staff do a valuable job. Staff wastage was high, but has now been reduced and performance-related pay has been introduced. I should like to speak about the assistance of the Treasury Officers of Account. Clifford Judd has retired and has been replaced by John Beastall. In Northern Ireland Brian Lyttle has been replaced by Mr. Small. I am grateful for their help.
Now perhaps I can deal with the reports. I frequently consider the number of reports that we have produced to the House. In 1985–86, there were 52 and in 1986–87 there were 19 because of the election. Of course, we have the reports that are before the House today. We produce a substantial number of reports, but it is important that the National Audit Office should itself examine fairly frequently areas of Government expenditure in order to ensure continuity and so that the Government Departments, accounting officers and people responsible for expenditure know full well that at any time the National Audit Office can make its inquiries.
If we dealt with a few reports at greater length, I am not sure how much better those reports would be. There would certainly be a feeling among those responsible for the spending of public money that the next time round for reports was some years hence, and the incentive to improve and maintain the better sytems might not be the same. The value-for-money reports, which are expected to reach 50 a year by 1992, will mean an extra weight of work on the Committee. Given that extra number of reports, the Committee will sometimes follow up the less important ones through written rather than oral questions. I am grateful for the dedication of members of the Committee for the way in which they assiduously read the mountain of papers, and for the way in which the questioning proceeds.
Every year we hope and claim that, some time in the future, we shall be able to give the National Audit Office the right to go into the accounts of the nationalised industries and to be present in those industries. Unfortunately, that was not in the legislation in 1983, but

at some future date I think that the House will realise that it is important so to proceed to be able to follow public money. It should not be necessary to follow it into every area, and carry out investigations, but it is certainly important to follow it into some of the more important areas. The Public Accounts Committee has the understanding, the ability and the financial and commercial expertise that will be valuable for such examinations.
Anybody who travels abroad knows full well the reputation of our Parliament and of our Civil Service. We play a part in making one accountable to the other. We make our highly regarded Civil Service accountable to the House. One feature of the past two or three years has been the large number of people coming from overseas to look at the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It is becoming almost embarrassing because we have to arrange for colleagues to deal with the number of inquiries and visitors who at times arrive almost weekly and who want to know how we are now carrying out our work. Our international standing is a source of considerable satisfaction.
We are responsible for examining the expenditure of a large part of the £140 billion to £150 billion of public money. As I said, we carry out certification work to make sure that the money goes for the purposes that Parliament intends and to the people that Parliament intends. The value-for-money side of our activities has three elements — economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Economy means paying no more than is required for the goods or services that are needed. Efficiency means getting the best results for the money that is expended, even though at times that may mean more money if that will give a higher output or better results. Effectiveness means the best way of achieving the aims of policy. It is not our duty to question the policies of the Government and that is how we maintain our unanimity. However, we are interested and anxious to ensure that the best ways of achieving those policies are undertaken.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend speaks about effectiveness. Does he accept that on occasions many political matters arise when we examine the effectiveness of the use of public money? Is it fair to say that in our reports we sometimes have to reflect that by perhaps not being as vigorous as we might otherwise be?

Mr. Sheldon: The Committee consists of hon. Members who understand the matters well. We know that there are areas into which we cannot go because they involve the province of Government. The Government have been elected and have the right, subject to the will of the House, to carry out their policies. Our task is to ensure that they do so effectively. In the end it is simpler than might be thought. My colleagues will agree that when anyone appears before the Committee we ask for a simple statement of objectives. A Department may have in mind the spending of a certain sum of money and we ask it to state its objectives clearly and in numerical terms where possible. Then we ask it to monitor progress.
Objectives can, and do, change in the light of changed circumstances. A Department should know at a certain stage how far it has got and what it has achieved for its expenditure. At the end of the day—maybe a year, two years or even five years later — we will ask what the


Department has achieved. We want to be able to compare objectives with achievements. At the start of a programme, the Committee says that a Department should know exactly where it stands and what it hopes to produce at the end. It may seem elementary to compare expectation with performance. It should be standard practice to quantify where possible and to set phased dates for examination. That is easy but it is often missed.
We have had some terrible examples where that has not happened, but fortunately nothing as horrendous as occurred a couple of years ago with premature retirement. I am glad that I have not had to update that example. Hon. Members may recall that there were premature retirements in the National Health Service. The Government decided that there were too many administrators and rightly offered incentives to administrators to leave the service. Of course, they paid them certain sums of money. But there was no assessment of how many would leave, how much it would cost and in what regions people would leave. As a result, in the north-east a few left and in the west large numbers left. At the end the Government did not know how much had been spent, how many had gone and, worst of all, how many had returned. I hope I shall never need to update that example. It is generally known now that we demand information in advance and that it is upon that information that Departments may proceed.
The Committee has drawn particular attention to five reports which we thought would be of general interest. Certain aspects of other reports are important but the Committee felt that we should concentrate on these five.
The 19th report, 1985–86, deals with expenditure on motorways and trunk roads. The Department of Transport spends £800 million a year on motorways; local authorities spend £1,500 million on other roads. Those who drive round the country—I suppose there are not many who drive much more than we do — will know that the coning of roads and motorways is a major scandal. We may sit in our cars for up to an hour on occasions. I am not talking about the adequacy of roads. There are constraints on expenditure but traffic jams have a cost in lives as well as in time. Expenditure on roads has not been efficient or effective.
In paragraph 17, we say that the Department of Transport
accepted that comparisons between estimated and actual traffic flows were an important factor in cost benefit analysis and back-checking the relevant assumptions and results. They admitted that they had not carried out the subsequent checks they should have done".
That is of enormous importance. Unless a Department compares what it hoped to achieve with the result it will not learn much. We thought that the failure to carry out back checking was wrong.
We were pleased about the suggestion of lane rentals, whereby contractors responsible for road maintenance or repair should pay a certain rental. We hope that the Financial Secretary can give us further information. It seemed to be a useful way of ensuring that the work was carried out efficiently and economically.
In paragraph 23, we said:
We consider it most unsatisfactory that maintenance of roads has been starved of funds for many years. …We consider it imperative that they should maintain roads in good repair and avoid the need for premature and extremely expensive reconstruction of either motorways or trunk roads due to lack of timely maintenance.

Often, because of failure to maintain roads and to spend a little money earlier, much more expenditure on repairs has to be undertaken subsequently.
In paragraph 24, we say:
Alterations to motorways after construction carry a disproportionate cost—the later addition of crash barriers, the later addition of lighting, the widening of former two lane motorways to three lane, all carry additional costs out of proportion to the cost of including these facilities originally.
The inadequate roads that result from lack of forethought have disastrous effects through delays and loss of life. Too many motorways have been inadequately designed and poorly built, and protracted repairs take months or even years.
The 25th report deals with the prison building programme. In 1979 the May committee suggested 3,400 refurbished places in 16 prisons, costing about £360 million. The aim was to match places with the prison population by the end of the decade. That was a clear objective which we welcomed and we look forward to its implementation in due course. In the report, we say that
the challenging target set in 1983 has now become an even tougher one.
That was matching places with prison population by the end of the decade. We continued:
In view of the Home Office's failure to build the types of prisons most urgently required and in the right locations, the difficulties and delays suffered with particular projects — including cases where buildings have been kept out of use even after completion — and the uncertainties caused by the difficulty in projecting the size of the prison population, we believe achievement of the target is in doubt.
A year or so after that report, we think that it is even more in doubt. In paragraph 29, we said that after the end of the decade there would
still be overcrowding in some prisons, and that large amounts of substandard accommodation will remain in use.
In paragraph 30, we said:
It gives us great cause for concern that in 1991"—
the end of this programme—
there will still be just under 20,000 cells without integral sanitation.
It is deplorable that after a programme of expenditure, development and refurbishment almost 20,000 cells are without integral sanitation. The original programme was not as well thought out as it ought to have been.
The 44th report deals with preventive medicine, the cost of which is reckoned to be some £600 million. That figure was suggested by research into expenditure on preventive medicine by the National Health Service. The Committee dealt with two aspects of preventive medicine, cervical cancer and other preventable diseases such as rubella, measles and whooping cough. The failure to undertake the call and recall system is inadequate. I quote from paragraph 23, where the Committee noted the Department's
frank admission as to why so little progress has been made in reducing the number of deaths from cervical cancer.
Bearing in mind that the programme was introduced almost 20 years ago, and the recommendations of the committee for gynaecological cytology between 1979 and 1981 regarding call and recall arrangements, we say:
it is deplorable in our view that it has taken so long to institute comprehensive arrangements for an effective screening programme.
This was brought home to me on Friday of last week when I heard of one of my constituents who had an examination in a hospital outside my area and something was found to be wrong, but she was not recalled. She has only now found out that she has cancer, and she is now in a hospital


in my constituency. That is awful, because that person felt a confidence that was completely unwarranted, which is much worse than not having had the test at all. At least if she had not had the test she would have been on the lookout for signs and symptoms to a greater degree than she was.
The past 20 years have been spent badly, in that essential work had not been carried out. I am pleased to note that this has improved in the past year and I understand that it will be put right by the summer of next year, but I wait to hear what the Financial Secretary might say about that.
The 45th report concerns the Metropolitan police. The investigation was unusual because, if we did not have the National Audit Office, the matter might not have been investigated in the same way. It was valuable to undertake the questioning of the Receiver, who is responsible for expenditure by the Metropolitan police, Mr. Alec Gordon-Brown. We note that:
accountability to Parliament operates primarily through the Home Office, with little direct accountability by the Met P.
We point out that the quality and form of information provided to Parliament on the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and performance of the Metropolitan police is clearly unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 29 refers to the overtime worked. We all know that the Metropolitan police have to undertake much overtime when emergencies and other activities demand, but it is difficult to ensure that overtime is worked only when it is essential and efficient to do so. Overtime is currently costing the Metropolitan police some £50 million a year and there is little assurance that it is under very close control. After questioning Mr. Alec Gordon-Brown, it was the Committee's unanimous view that his responses were far from satisfactory. The report continues:
so the potential savings to be achieved through more positive and effective systems of control could well be substantial. We therefore welcome the current and proposed research into how, why and when overtime is worked.
We know that when emergencies occur these matters are not considered, as they might be at a more relaxed time. Nevertheless, taking those matters into account, the Committee's view was that this is disturbing. Finally, we say that we are concerned over inadequacies and delays in the Metropolitan police manpower reviews and ask for an improvement of the review arrangements to provide the necessary justification for the existing and proposed manpower levels of both police and civil staff. One would have thought that this should have been done, and we regret that it was not.
The 50th report deals with vehicle excise duty evasion, which was estimated to cost about £100 million in 1985–86. Over the past few years, despite increased efforts, no significant reduction has been made. We know that it is difficult to trace owners. Of over 1 million cases notified, only 30 per cent, were prosecuted. This is very unsatisfactory, but we understand the difficulties. More than two thirds of those people caught committing the offence of not having a vehicle excise duty licence are not prosecuted, and the fines imposed on those who go to court are ludicrous. The average fine is £47 and the licence costs £100. The maximum fine is £500. We do not know what percentage of those who commit the offence are caught, but of the people who are caught their chances of

being prosecuted are only 30 per cent., and the averge fine is only £47. Ministers would like to see the fines increased, but it is up to the courts to decide those matters. We can only send out a signal to the courts that we wish to see increased fines imposed on those convicted.
We endorse the Department's view on this matter and ask that our concern be brought to the attention of the Home Office and the Magistrates' Association. Such widespread evasion at such little risk must not continue. Those who undertake the running of a car, with the attendant high costs and responsibilities of its ownership and running, must be prepared to pay the vehicle excise duty.
The 26th report deals with fraud and corruption. The Committee takes a serious view of matters which involve losses. In 1984–85 the Home Office wrote off losses of £17·3 million and bad debts of £1 million. In 1983 allegations were made about the dealings of the directorate of prison industries and farms with one particular company which was subsequently the cause of a loss of £15 million, which is noted in the accounts. That concerned work undertaken by those serving sentences of imprisonment, producing toys, among other things. As a result, six officials were suspended from duty and charges of corruption were made against three of them, although they were subsequently acquitted. Two of the suspended officials retired early and the other four resigned.
Nevertheless, the directorate accepted that there had been too close a relationship between some members of its staff and some of the contractors. It told us that it was taking rigorous action to strengthen its defences against fraud and corruption by every possible means and had made that clear to staff by training, instruction and example. That is of great importance.
Leaving aside allegations of fraud and corruption, of which the defendants were acquitted by the courts, there has clearly been incompetence and serious failures to meet necessary standards in performance amounting to substantial negligence in a number of cases. In such circumstances, to be able to resign without financial penalty, or to retire early and to receive enhancement of pension entitlement, seems indefensible and we expressed our strong disapproval of that.
As I said, in our report we take a most serious view of even a suspicion of fraud and corruption in the conduct of public business. The lack of proper supervision and control makes it more difficult to establish the facts in those cases where fraud and corruption were suspected, but not proved. I hope that it will stand as a statement of the view of the Public Accounts Committee when we say:
We will always expect, and indeed demand, the most scrupulous standards of behaviour from all public servants; and we welcome the action taken by the Home Office to ensure in future the highest standards of conduct by their staff in relations with contractors.
I do not need to go into Lear Fan in great detail because it deals with a number of the problems that we had with the De Lorean case. In fact, it almost overlapped it. The question really is — it is an important one for the Administration — how we deal with high-risk areas of activity. Governments cannot be immune from dealing with these high-risk areas, but, because of the importance of maintaining the position of public money and our concern quite naturally for the expenditure of that money, we need to have rather different rules from those in the private sector.
The private sector can taken a number of risks. It gains some and loses some. If it gains more than it loses, or substantially more than it loses, that is acceptable, but losses must be justified much more fully and accurately when dealing with public money and we make that point strongly.
In this case £56 million was lost. Whereas with De Lorean there were only 50 days of appraisal, in Lear Fan there were 18 months of appraisal. Of course, there was the matter of job creation in Northern Ireland—something that all of us would wish to see. The quality of management is a major cause of failure. It is important that the House realises the importance of the Downey principles, one of the most important of which is that one does not give money and then more money when it is needed, or even examine the matter when the initial tranche runs out, to see if more is needed. Certain phases must be set in advance. One says when the matter should be reviewed and that no more money will be available until a certain period. So often, by the time more money has been requested and the latest report and accounts have been produced and analysed, the situation has moved on. Therefore, one is never given the exact information at the time a decision has to be made. The only way to proceed is by the phases which form an important part of the Downey principles.
Yet again, we had the role of nominee directors. Our report on nominee directors has been debated in the House. We showed how they need to ensure that they undertake their responsibilities. It is not the sort of job that so many people thought it was several years ago. It is a responsible job, acting on behalf of the Government or the agency. We draw those conclusions again.
The cost of legal aid, which is dealt with in the 32nd report, is not cash limited. In 1979–80 it cost Britain £87 million to provide legal aid. That had risen to £263 million in 1984–85. The Law Society administers legal aid on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We were assured that there was no conflict of interest here, but we were not satisfied. We say:
It is clearly important that an adequate separation of duties should be maintained to ensure that those with specific responsibility for the administration of legal aid should remain separate from those whose role it is to negotiate the remuneration of the profession.
That seems obvious. We are dealing with a professional body of high standards, but when one takes into account the opportunities for fraud, it is clearly important that those with responsibility for the administration of the expenditure of money should be separate from those who negotiate remuneration. We had no doubt about the high standing of the people who came before us, but, clearly, there cannot be, and must not continue to be, this conflict of interest. Of course, there was no question of those responsible operating with other than the highest principles, but the general view still remained.
We go on to say:
We were astonished that neither the Lord Chancellor's Department"—
we do not use such words frequently; the Public Accounts Committee is noted for its restrained use of language, so such florid language is used only when we are picking out particular examples—
nor the Law Society had the management information to identify precisely the causes of the increase in legal aid expenditure over the years …There must be a serious doubt

as to whether all abuse of legal aid is being identified and reported; the Law Society must ensure that there are effective checks
We found that only three cases of abuse had been reported. Of course it is an honourable profession. We asked Sir Derek Oulton, the accounting officer, how he was dealing with the matter and he said:
We are always …exceedingly anxious about abuse of legal aid.
It does not matter how good a profession is, we thought that three cases were an understatement of the sort of abuses that we thought were likely to occur.
Then we went on to deal with green forms. Green forms cost about £1 million. They are a means of dealing with small matters where advice can quickly be given. They are most valuable and useful and everybody would want to see an increase of that kind of advice. In 1973–74 £1 million was spent, and 10 years later £44 million was spent. Some people have described it as the printing of £50 notes and the back-up was quite inadequate.
We say in our recommendations:
We are concerned at the very large rise in green form expenditure".
I think that we were right to be concerned; we believed that the scheme was a possible area of abuse. We recommended
pending the outcome of research into the scope of the scheme …redesign of the form to provide a greater degree of control.
We also advise a system of spot checks. However valuable, right and proper the motives where public money is concerned, they cannot excuse lack of control and a failure to ensure that that money is safeguarded. We were pleased to note in the Treasury minute that the report of the efficiency scrutiny investigation recommends the virtual abolition of the green form scheme in its present form. We also note that the Law Society is re-examining the matter and making early proposals for spot checks. We welcome that, as the service is clearly valuable, and we would not wish for its limitation through any wrongful use.
The 40th report deals with the torpedo programme. So much of that programme was summed up in question number 2390, asked by the hon. Member for Horsham. He said:
We have so far spent £5,000 million on torpedoes.
Earlier, he commented:
One of the interesting things, looking at the record of the torpedo programme, is that it would appear that had we chosen to buy the American torpedoes we would have saved ourselves a great deal of money.
Even in these more profligate days, £5 billion is an enormous amount to spend. It should be possible to buy an enormous quantity of weaponry, approching the ultimate weapon, for that amount. For a fraction of the cost, we could have bought something off the shelf which would have performed satisfactorily. I fear that that does not apply to all of our expenditure nowadays. We have retained a close and continuing interest in such expenditure, and will be returning to it again and again.
My next subject concerns a small amount of money: however, the small amounts often produce the principles. The 49th report deals with service movements. The services spend a considerable amount on vehicles and on the movement of personnel, stores and equipment, moving them around the country and overseas. They pay the commercial carriers, because not everything is dealt with in-service; there are operators who act on behalf of the various services. A total of £84 million was spent outside


the services on the movement of stores and equipment, and £130 million was spent on personnel. To our astonishment, we found that the Government freight agent — which happens to be Hogg Robinson—had been chosen on an exchange of letters, with no competition, in 1870, and that that contract had been continued without any further discussion or competition. When I came to the Public Accounts Committee, I thought that all those skeletons had long since been discovered and reinterred. I hope that, if any civil servants ever hear about this, and if they know of any similar "skeleton", they will bring it out of the cupboard there and then.
The facts are appalling. We spent £15 million a year on the Government freight agent. The Ministry of Defence has told us that it considered that it was obtaining value for money; I am not sure how it was able to define that in the absence of competition. What we want, and persistently demand, are competitive contracts wherever possible. No one can doubt that it is the easiest thing in the world to obtain such a contract—to go out of one office and into another. I am sure that that will come to be accepted. If it is not, however, we shall exercise our only power which is to ask for a justification of such action —or perhaps, in this instance, inaction.
Our 52nd report deals with mortgage interest relief at source. In 1984–85, MIRAS cost the country £3·5 billion — it costs rather more now — and we commented on what we considered a serious amount of abuse. Paragraph 16 states:
Inland Revenue told us that statistical information suggested that home improvement loans could have accounted for MIRAS of between £250 million and £500 million in 1985–86.
The Treasury minute now says that the figure may be as low as £1 million. We do not know whether that is the case. However, the important point is the inability to know how much has been spent, or misspent.
The Inland Revenue felt that a more effective deterrent than carrying out a full examination of the receipts for such expenditure would be a few timely and well-chosen prosecutions, as a result of sample checks. The Revenue admitted, however, that no prosecutions had so far been instigated, although investigations into a few suspect cases were being pursued intensively. We felt that there were likely to be more rather than fewer such evasions, and we did not understand why the Inland Revenue was reluctant to require receipts in support of mortgage relief for home improvement loans. We thought that, if a duty were placed on the lender to obtain and keep the evidence, it might be more effective in reducing the scale of evasion. After all, so many people have to do that in regard to far smaller expenditure. Stories of people going on holiday on the proceeds of the new extension to their homes became legion about a year ago, and I am not sure that the reliability of such stories has been much reduced.
The sixth report concerns the Session 1986–87, and is rather more important. It deals with expenditure on major equipment. An annual amount of £1·6 billion is spent on major equipment for the armed services. We know full well that the cancellation of Nimrod represented about £1 billion, and that there were problems with cost-plus contracts. We were particularly concerned about serious failures to introduce competition when it could have been introduced. However, the Ministry of Defence assured us

that it was now acting on the main lessons that it had learnt. It was no longer allowing cost-plus contracts without a ceiling, was placing project management responsibility on the contractor and was insisting on having one identifiable body as prime contractor. We found that reaction most encouraging.
We noted the particular problem of cost-plus, and that it had been operated without a ceiling. We also noted what had been called "gold plating", which, as defined by the Ministry of Defence, meant having rather exacting specifications that might not be necessary. We regard that seriously, because in so many cases exacting specifications —while giving security to the people who produce the contract, or the specification — might lead to the contract turning out to be rather more expensive than it should be.
I must refer to the comments of Mr. Levene, the Chief of Defence Procurement, in answer to my question 428, about competitive contracts. Mr. Levene was referring to the way in which contracts are let and to the fact that modifications need to be kept to a minimum. He said:
One of our contractors was telling me the other day that he had this wonderful new system for incorporation into tanks — which may well be a very good system. Nevertheless, he had gone to the prime contractor and said he had this new system which he would like them to incorporate in the tanks. The prime contractor said to him 'Look, I have a fixed-price contract, I have a penalty clause, I have to deliver on time and on cost and unless you are prepared to underwrite the whole of the potential cost of delay both in time and money for the programme please go away.' I might be criticised for this but I have to tell you that I regarded that as one of the most helpful things I have heard for a very long time. That was an unsolicited comment and of course came through as a complaint. If you want to get rid of 'gold plating' — and I think we all agree that it is unfortunate that it has come about so often—there will be times when you may miss out on something but it is a small price to pay for getting equipment on time and on cost, that works perhaps to a slightly lesser specification but at least it works and you have not overpaid for it.
Mr. Levene said that he might be criticised, but the exact opposite occurred. He was highly commended. We thought that his comments were most encouraging. The introduction of competition, wherever possible, has been most valuable for the Ministry of Defence. We hope that there will be competition for sub-contracts, even when there cannot be competition for the main contract, because there is only one main contractor. There is a new feeling of cash flow discipline within the Ministry of Defence.
Those with a commercial or an industrial background know full well that the one great discipline in the private sector is the ability to ensure that the cash flow is reasonably right. However, that problem does not affect the Government in quite the same way. They do not have the same cash flow problems as the private sector. Their valuable weapon is that if performance and price are not obtained they can cut the cash flow at the place where it hurts. We were very encouraged to hear that. We hope that it will be reflected in the work, the expenditure on, and the performance of the various weapons systems that we investigated.
Financial reporting to Parliament is a matter that concerns very few people, because very few people know much about it. However, we believe that it is important. Therefore, we asked for annual reports to be provided, setting out the work of a number of Departments. We have emphasised the importance that we attach to Parliament being provided with information on performance,


efficiency and effectiveness. So long as the Estimates continue to be the formal basis for the granting of Supply by Parliament, it is essential that there should be a simple and direct correlation between them and information in the public expenditure White Paper on departmental objectives, performance and output.
We recognise the difficulties, but the major Government instruments for bringing expenditure to the attention of the House are the public expenditure White Paper, the Estimates and the appropriation accounts. The appropriation accounts come at the end of a very long line. They deal with the amount of money that has been granted. It will be a long time, therefore, before we can incorporate that information. However, we can make some movement towards a direct correlation between the Estimates and the public expenditure White Paper. At some stage in the future it may be possible to bring them much closer together. We notice that in their Treasury minute the Government have agreed to the bringing together of the public expenditure White Paper and the Estimates. We hope that in due course those aspects will be incorporated.
The financial management initiative began in May 1982, with the aim of improving the allocation, management and control of resources. The aim of that initiative is to obtain value for money at different levels. Its objectives are to find out what can be achieved, when it can be achieved and at what cost. We welcome that initiative. The attribution of responsibility is crucial. We have to identify who is successful and then reward him. Also we have to identify who is not successful and then take the appropriate action. Some objectives and some outputs cannot easily be quantified, but wherever possible there should be some quantification. Furthermore, there should be some statement of objectives. It is important to maintain the momentum. Therefore, we shall continue our studies.
I have already said that money must go where Parliament intended it to go. I am sure that there will be reports in the media tomorrow that the House was not so full as it might have been for this debate, even though it is one of the most important debates of the year. I am not disappointed. If the House thought that the Public Accounts Committee was failing to investigate what is happening and what is wrong, the Chamber would be crowded. However, the House has confidence in the work of my colleagues. So long as that confidence remains, my colleagues will do their best to pursue effectively their investigations on behalf of the House of Commons and the taxpayer.

Sir Michael Shaw: My first duty must be to say on behalf of all members of the Public Accounts Committee a very big thank you to our continuing Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I am very glad that he is continuing in his office. He has worked tremendously hard during a period of great development in the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, arising out of the 1983 Act. These developments could not have taken place under a better Chairman.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech ranged very wide. That was natural, because the subject of the debate is very wide. I do not intend to go into such great detail, but I take up his concluding words: that if the Public Accounts

Committee was not doing its duty, the House would probably have been full. I am an accountant, and I remember that one could foresee the sort of annual general meeting a client would have by the company results. If the results were sound and the company was doing well, everybody had confidence in the leadership of the company, nobody bothered to turn up at the annual general meeting and it was over in five minutes. If, alas, things were going ill, it was different—everybody turned up and wanted to know what was wrong. I am glad to say that it appears that we are doing our job well and to the reasonable satisfaction — I shall not put it any higher than that—of the rest of the House.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred, rightly — we are looking at papers that we considered in the last Parliament—to colleagues who are no longer with us. Some have moved on to higher and better things, like my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Others have left the House voluntarily or because of the vagaries of the political system. None the less, all of them contributed to what we were doing. Names that come to mind are Mr. Deakins, Mr. Frederick Silvester, Mr. Park, Mr. Cockeram, and others who for the moment escape my mind. They all played a part in the examination of witnesses and preparation of reports.
I am pleased with the quality of their replacements. In forthcoming years we shall enhance our reputation and produce results of benefit to the House and to the Government. The new Members come with good reputations in the House, and with a wide experience in the House and elsewhere.
I shall deal with one or two of the reports only. They reinforce the general theme of our investigations, as set out by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. First, the 19th report — it is curious that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and I should choose to start with the same report—concerns road maintenance. We are forcefully reminded about road maintenance as we come here from our respective constituencies. A serious lesson, not only with regard to the need for good roads, emerged clearly from the report: there is a need for continuity of programmes and for constant monitoring. When looking through the reports, and at our more recent work, it is curious that the word "monitoring" seems to come more and more into what we are seeking to do.
As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it is no good setting up a process, putting money into it and then letting it go. The programme must be constantly monitored, and one must ensure that it is matched so that it can be monitored. The same applies to the road motorway scheme. It is obviously better not to carry out the motorway scheme in fits and starts, with a little being spent one year and a lot in another. It must be a task of good government to spread a programme steadily so that the work force is continually in work, carrying out the programme.
That is the case with regard to maintenance. Sir Peter Lazarus gave evidence to the Committee. His comments were significant and I am often reminded of them as I pass through coned areas when travelling to and from Yorkshire. On page 5 of the evidence, he is reported as having said:
We shall deal with the backlog on motorways within the next six years and that is the right timetable from our point of view. The aim, taking a long term look, is to maintain


about 5 per cent, of motorways every year—that is capital maintenance, either putting down an overlay or, if it is necessary, doing major reconstruction — that is about 70 miles. We reckon that if we do 80 miles we shall catch up over six years and that if we do more than 80 miles"—
by that I understand him to mean do the 80 miles and other certain urgent work—
…that is about as much as we ought to do without imposing unreasonable delays on those who use the roads.
That is the stark need that is apparent when we go up and down the motorway — the need for planning and the consequences of not planning and carrying out maintenance as and when it should be done. Clearly, the inconvenience to motorists is considerable, and will be so until the backlog has been brought up to date, when we can consider what Sir Peter Lazarus described as the tolerable repair programme.
The other point that Sir Peter Lazarus made was that if repairs are not done within the proper time the consequences are vastly expensive. Instead of being able to put in a 7 in or 8 in overlay on the ground the road must be dug up altogether. From what I have seen on my journeys, that is what has been happening recently, and we do not want it to happen again.
The 25th report of the House deals with the prison building programme. Over the years the quality of building, and the upsets during the course of the building and over the early years of operation seem to recur in varying forms in so many of our investigations. Here it is highlighted with regard to prisons. Paragraph VI on page xviii says:
The Home Office and the PSA have built some prisons of basically poor design"—
one is reminded of words that were said outside the Chamber on the subject of early design in the post-war period; I am sure that they are relevant to prison designs—
using unsuitable sites because they were the only ones readily available. Designs have been changed, giving rise to extra cost and delay. There have been design and building defects on which the Departments were slow to take action because of poor appraisal and feedback arrangements. Some past faults are giving rise to excessive staff costs or buildings that cannot be used.
If one goes through all the questioning that went on in Committee, those features are all too apparent; we condemn those failures. However, the failures have been present right from the beginning. Conclusion viii says:
We are concerned at various instances of difficulties involving consultants engaged by PSA. Consultants should be carefully vetted at the time of engagement and thoroughly briefed, their contracts should be tightly drawn and their performance assiduously monitored, and if they do fall down on the job due redress should be obtained.
That is a criticism of the contractors, but in all too many cases it is a criticism of the Department for not laying down clear guidelines as to exactly what it wants. In fairness to the contractors and the public purse, that is a lesson that is slowly being learnt, but it must be learnt if there is to be efficient contracting within the service.

Mr. Ian Gow: Has my hon. Friend applied his mind to the question whether it is necessary, when the Department of Transport is planning original motorways or maintaining or rebuilding motorways, to involve the Property Services Agency? Would it be

possible, in the cases that my hon. Friend has described, for the Department of Transport to deal direct with the consultants or with the constructors?

Sir Michael Shaw: That is a very interesting question. No doubt my hon. Friend will raise it many times during our discussions in the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, we have raised such questions before. So far, the decision in various areas has been that it would be better for action to proceed through the PSA. I do not have a closed mind on this matter. We must continually question the future of the PSA. That may well be a matter for later consideration.
I remember a very unusual occasion which I thought the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was going to refer to, but in fact he referred to another. It resulted in an immediate resignation in connection with the PSA because of the difficulties that we had discovered. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is right to raise this question. I hope that he will continue to examine this matter very closely with an open mind and with his usual acute observation. Contracts should not automatically go to the PSA. They should go to the PSA only if it proves that it is worthy of the contract.
I return to my point about clearly setting out the objectives before Government money is committed. We must set out the objectives to state exactly what is wanted. At the same time, we must ensure that arrangements are made to control the expenditure of the money and monitor whatever enterprise has been set up as a result. It is absolutely essential to discover what was originally wanted and whether it was achieved at the price originally envisaged. That is one of our main tasks.
The 11th report from the PAC refers to National Health Service manpower. Obviously that affects many people as many people rightly are worried about Health Service manpower. We have been watching it for some time with considerable concern, as the report discloses. Page xii states:
We note that since we took evidence from the Department, the review body on nurses' pay has reported and its recommendations have been accepted.
That is history now. However, that happened as a result of our expressing concern at the present acute shortages of nursing staff in some areas. Obviously we shall have to consider that matter again in the near future.
The 11th report is very important. It shows that our comments and criticisms are relevant to matters of great concern to the public. I have said that we shall return to that matter and it is clearly one of our jobs to return to our reports, and to the responses from the Treasury to ensure that our recommendations are carried out. At the same time, it is just as important that as we monitor them, so they should monitor their own actions. Our work will then be lightened and, if any faults arise, they will be caught at an earlier stage.
I now want to consider the Welsh Development Agency. I refer to the WDA as an example of Departments monitoring themselves. We have not yet published all the evidence about what happens. We will do that one of these days, but for the moment we have not done so and I will leave it at that. What of our recommendations about the Welsh Development Agency? In the preamble to the seventh report we state:
We took evidence in June 1986 from the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency on investment in industry


undertaken by the Agency. We had decided not to publish this evidence at the present time, though we hope to do so later together with a full account of our findings.
We then give some general conclusions. Conclusion (d) states:
For a major investment WDA should insist, before completion of an agreement when its influence is greatest, on the creation of a competent and balanced management team for the investee company.
We may think that that is common sense, but it does not exist. Conclusion (e) states:
Where monitoring officers take over existing cases it should be regarded as a fundamental necessity for subsequent monitoring that they make themselves fully conversant with the case by a thorough review of the relevant papers.
An outsider may think that it is astonishing to have to include such a recommendation. However, it was absolutely essential. Conclusion (g) states:
The Agency should take all possible steps to avoid a situation where substantial additional funds are put into an investee company at short notice on the basis of company projections that have not been independently validated.
It is right that that should be avoided according to the examples that we saw.
Common sense is not a common virtue. It must be inculcated and the disciplines that flow from it must be placed there by the Departments to ensure that value for money is achieved. The other day—and I will not go into details and names — I had cause to question an accounting officer about a certain enterprise into which Government money had been placed. To my surprise, I received a letter from people involved in that enterprise saying that the calibre of those appointed to run the enterprise was far greater than the calibre to be found in the Department and that a detailed involvement by the Department would be a waste of time. I replied:
I am afraid that my experience on the PAC has taught me that one should never assume that, because matters have been put in the hands of a distinguished board or committee, there is no further need for inquiry".
In many cases—for example, De Lorean, Lear Fan and indeed the WDA—it is no good simply appointing distinguished gentlemen. They may be very good, but we must check that they are. If we do not, we may find that they enjoy the fruits of retirement. That is not the purpose of their appointment. They have a very responsible job. Their purpose is to ensure that Government money, the taxpayers' money, is well spent in the manner for which it was authorised.
I want to consider the amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). It has not been selected, but we are allowed to discuss it. It is right that we should consider whether today's debate is being approached in the right way.
There is a problem for the future here because our work is becoming more important. We have been very fortunate. We have had a very distinguished Comptroller and Auditor General. Before I forget, I should add that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne — I nearly said my right hon. Friend—has a very distinguished and important part to play at this juncture. I am sure that he will play a worthy part in advising and consulting the Prime Minister about the selection of his successor. I wish him luck in the task that he is to carry out on our behalf.
What are we to do? Are we to seek — as the amendment seems to suggest that we should — to have more frequent debates in the House to deal with specific matters raised in the course of our investigations? That

would be one way. Perhaps I am getting too old for this game, but I do not think that we shall get a House full of Members to listen to such debates. Our debates are too complicated, and perhaps we may flatter ourselves that our hon. Friends are glad to leave these matters in our hands. Obviously we need periodic debates, even if they are only once a year, to discuss the state of the nation, as it were, with regard to the Public Accounts Committee and perhaps we could have additional days when necessary.
If we are to make the most of the Public Accounts Committee and the new importance that should be attached to it, we shall have to enhance the Committee's meetings. That must be the way forward. Far more notice is being taken of the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General than of our own reports. If we are to have added importance, we must look to the surroundings in which we work. The PAC sat for the first time in conditions and circumstances very different from those in which we find ourselves today. The workload was very much lighter and the Government expenditure involved was very much less. As our work changes, so must the circumstances in which we meet. In particular, we have the threat of television. I use the word "threat" because I am against the televising of the House.
If we are to be televised, the PAC, our oldest Committee, ought to be televised. We need accommodation and arrangements must be made for us to sit in comfort. We need plenty of room for witnesses and for those who advise them and a proper public gallery. Earlier this week we met in a packed room and those in the gallery had to stand for two hours listening to our discourse. That is wrong. All the new buildings that are going up and all the enlargements that are taking place—if, indeed, they are taking place behind those sheets across the road— ought to be able to accommodate a proper Committee Room for the PAC, catering not only for hon. Members and staff but for witnesses and their advisers, for the public and, if necessary, for television and radio. That is the way forward.
I do not know whether we should have general debates on specific matters in our Committee, and I am not particularly bothered. However, I am concerned that our investigations and proceedings should be made known to the public in every possible way so that their influence and importance can be brought to the fore.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) on his speech. I only regret that he stopped so short in his description of the Welsh Development Agency. I was anticipating ever greater revelations on what promises to be a Taffgate. I imagine that if the evidence is published, the public gallery will be packed next time the subject of the Welsh Development Agency appears before the Committee. I follow the hon. Gentleman, too, in saying that the House should clearly consider afresh how best to establish a link between the valuable reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and, indeed, Select Committees in general, and the whole House. There is a great danger of a gulf developing between the valuable work done upstairs and the rather noisier business on the Floor of the House.
This is an evening of consensus and I note that the hon. Gentleman nearly fell into the habit of calling my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the PAC, his "right hon.
Friend". Perhaps we should continue in that spirit. On both sides of the House, we must address ourselves to the question of how best to bring the work of Select Committees and the PAC, which is the key Committee of the House, before the whole House.
The Committee's importance lies not only in its reports, valuable though they are, but in the fact that it can potentially throw a searchlight on any aspect of Government. Civil servants everywhere know that they are being watched, and that the PAC is there in the background. The ability of the PAC to throw a searchlight on all corners of Government is perhaps one of its most valuable functions.
Knowing as they do that I represent a constituency which contains the driver vehicle licensing centre, hon. Members will not be surprised if I rehearse some of the comments that I made when the reports of the PAC last came before the House way back in 1985 and examine the 50th report of the PAC, relating to vehicle excise duty. I confess to a certain feeling of déjà vu. In all our debates on the PAC we begin, as we began today, with a magisterial and excellent general report by the Chairman, followed by a number of helpful specialist contributions. There is a danger of covering much the same ground that we covered in the debate in October 1985. However, it is important that we monitor the effectiveness and implementation of the various recommendations made by the Committee in earlier reports. Some of the questions raised in the Committee's earlier report on vehicle excise duty remain to be answered.
It appears from its latest report on vehicle excise duty evasion and enforcement that the Committee is still flirting with the possibility of an alternative to vehicle excise duty. For example, the report says:
the position on alternatives …has not been permanently settled.
It is significant that the whole question of an alternative to vehicle excise duty has been discussed at the highest levels of Government over the past decade. On each occasion, however superficial has been the proposal of a switch to a tax on petrol, it has been rejected by the Government. It looks as though the PAC is tending in the present report to overlook the strength of the positive case for the retention of vehicle excise duty.
A petrol tax would place too big a share of the burden of motoring taxation on high-mileage rural motorists. As the census showed, some of the poorest people in the country live in rural areas and, because of the inadequacy of public transport, are forced to rely on motor vehicles. Of course, the same applies to essential business users. At 1979 prices, more than £100 million a year would have been added to business costs, obviously resulting in higher prices and inflation, had there been this tax on petrol. In addition, abolition of the vehicle excise duty would clearly promote the interests of diesel-driven vehicles, and it could have substantial effects on what remains of the British motor industry.
The present method of collecting vehicle excise duty promotes the accuracy of vehicle records by regularly updating the names and addresses of car owners and vehicle descriptions. It is of considerable importance that such information be kept up to date. Currently, the vehicle record is 95 per cent, accurate. The inaccuracy of the record is caused by unlicensed vehicles. If all the vehicles

in the country were to be unlicensed, the record would be substantially more inaccurate. The police are ready to confirm the importance to them of the current system.
Not only is revenue an important aspect of vehicle excise duty but it works as a check that drivers are properly insured and that their vehicles have MOT test certificates and so on. Therefore, it plays a vital function in the fight to improve road safety standards.
Another important advantage of vehicle excise duty relates to the ability to answer inquiries from motor manufacturers regarding recall campaigns which result in the removal of unsafe vehicles from the road. Many current advantages will be lost if VED is abolished. I shall not trespass on the time of the House by stating the staff implications, but they should be a major factor in the Government's consideration.
On the general principle of motor taxation, what appears to be a superficially attractive alternative is unlikely to be so in practice. I counsel the Committee not to drift into the danger of saying that something must be done to make a positive recommendation in respect of an alternative to vehicle excise duty. I remind the Committee of the danger of responding to the "something must be done" syndrome in the light of the unfortunate poll tax precedent. It now hangs like an albatross around the Government's neck, whether it be the tartan precedent of the Bill that is now lumbering its way through the House.
The Committee mentioned the level of evasion. It is certainly true that the gross figures have increased, but they have increased, in part at least, as a result of the increase in duty. The evasion element compares favourably with that in respect of income tax and various customs and excise revenues. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the driver vehicle licensing centre is a cost-effective operation. The revenue that it collects—of course, mostly VED—is substantially in excess of £2·5 billion.
If there is a correlation between hon. Members' interest, the grand public's interest and the quality of the product, one may contrast the questions on transport, when there were frequent criticisms of the centre during its teething problems of the 1970s, with the fact that there is now hardly a passing reference to the efficiency of the centre. That has been confirmed by many Transport Ministers, who, as they come and go—they tend to come and go frequently—have visited the centre.

Sir Michael Shaw: At least they have come.

Mr. Anderson: We have with us one coming Minister. May he continue to come for a long time — until the next election, anyway.
I am surprised that the Government said to the Committee that the staff implications are such that there would be only marginal returns in respect of licence evasion if there were to be an increase in staff. That is certainly not the attitude that was adopted earlier. That is not the view of the unions, as one would expect, or of the management of the driver vehicle licensing centre. They think that the bulk of evasion could be eliminated in a cost-effective way by an increase in resources. It would be helpful if the Minister would give us a clearer picture of the Government's views of the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of employing additional staff. How many cases are currently being abandoned because of staff shortages?
Is the Minister prepared to say that Government restraints on Civil Service manpower do not play a significant part in the adequacy of tax collection?
Earlier this week, I was interested to see the Solicitor-General's response to the Adjournment debate relating to the Land Registry. He talked about a possible new way of looking at the manpower requirements of a body such as the Land Registry, which is self-financing and which might be considered outside the normal Civil Service restraints. Will the Minister examine that point, which is reported in Hansard of 30 November 1987, in the light of the staffing claims that have been made by the driver vehicle licensing centre?
I am happy with the improved links with the police. In May 1984, the police in my area of south Wales were unwilling to participate in the vehicle excise duty blitz operation that was called for. As the Minister knows, this autumn there has been a blitz campaign. It will be helpful if, in an appropriate way, the Minister will tell the House what the results of that campaign have been, and whether, in the Department's view, the operation has been cost-effective. I do not know what the appropriate form is, but I am sure that the Minister, with his usual courtesy, will find a means of stating the position to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will be able to answer him.

Mr. Anderson: With regard to the level of finance, this is where we came in. Each time, I have received a sheaf of replies from the Department of Transport stating that it is concerned about the level of fines and that it is derisory that only £47 is the average fine for those in default. As the Chairman of the Committee said, on balance, it almost makes it worthwhile or not to pay one's vehicle excise duty. Perhaps that is a message that should not go out too clearly from the debate. The Chairman talked about widespread evasion and little risk.
Therefore, it would be helpful to know whether the Government will seek to lean on the Magistrates Association and the extent to which the Magistrates Association has responded in sending guidance to magistrates on the appropriate fines for vehicle excise offences. Clearly, the current campaigns have been ineffective. The level of fines has moved up only marginally. It is still wholly inadequate and is no real deterrent to those who are tempted to default on payment of vehicle excise duties.
Finally, I have been in touch with the Department from time to time to ask what other bright ideas it has about evasion. Two years ago, I raised, if only for consideration, the question of wheel clamps and received a reply from a gentleman who then described himself as the Minister for Aviation, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). In a letter dated 29 November 1985 he referred to the point that I raised during the debate on 24 October 1985, stating that I suggested
that the wheel clamping of an unlicensed vehicle might be a possible enforcement measure in areas of high evasion.
The Minister stated:
At present, wheel clamping is, of course, being trialled"—
that is an awful word—
in a small area of central London to test its effectiveness ir the field of parking control. I think we need to complete that experiment and, if successful, establish clamping as an accepted traffic control measure before considering its use for

other purposes. But I have certainly not ruled out the possible use of clamping, or impounding, to strengthen VED enforcement in urban areas in the long term.
That letter was written just over two years ago. I repeat my suggestion to the Minister, but ask, how long is "the long term"?

Mr. Michael Latham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) not only because of the importance of his contribution but because he addressed a matter to which I shall turn in a moment, not the question of vehicle excise duty but the interface between policy and the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which is an extremely important issue.
First, I should like to put to the House, as I did to some extent during last year's debate, my question, "Why do we bother?" Why do some of us turn up every Monday afternoon from 4.45 pm until about 7 o'clock and every Wednesday afternoon from 4.15 pm to 7 o'clock, with mounds of paper, to take part in the operation of the PAC? For sure, it is not for publicity. We do not get our names in the papers as a result. One gets more publicity from one asinine remark to the Press Association about nothing at all than one gets for serving on the PAC for a year. For sure, it is not to address packed Benches in the House of Commons. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) rightly said, if the House was concerned about that matter and was not prepared to trust to our judgment, hon. Members would be here to listen, but they are not. Perhaps we should regard that as a negative compliment.
Why do we do it? I know why I do it. In many ways, it is the most important thing that I do in this building, apart from, of course, my constituency work because, at last, I, a little cog in this big wheel, can get to grips with the real source of power. I am sorry to say that the real source of power is not my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, fond though I am of him because we were at Cambridge together, and I have the highest possible admiration for him. The real source of power sits opposite us in the PAC on Mondays and Wednesdays — the "Sir Humphrey Appleby'", the permanent secretary, the great mandarin. The first sign of the crucial importance of the PAC is that the head of the Department is legally, contractually, and statutorily required to be there in front of Committee members.
Only the other day, the Treasury Officer of Accounts, a senior civil servant who appears at all our meetings, circulated another memorandum to all permanent secretaries reminding them of their statutory duty to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to answer for all the work of their Department, including work before they came to the Department. They may have served earlier in a different Department, but they must answer for their Department's work even before they became the permanent secretary.
The memorandum also serves to remind us — my goodness, what an important point this is — that if Ministers decide on policy grounds to overturn the recommendations of their officials in a way that the officials regard as financially unwise or likely to come before the Committee for censure, it is the duty of the permanent secretaries to seek written instructions from their Minister. It is worth stressing that point because it


is not academic. To my certain knowledge, the Committee has at least twice asked the Officer of Accounts whether such instructions were sought. I hasten to say that we received satisfactory responses on each occasion. The duty of the Officer of Accounts to appear personally before the Committee is a statutory duty that cannot be waived and that is, in my view, absolutely crucial to our work.
The work of the Comptroller and Auditor General is also absolutely crucial. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne rightly paid tribute to the work of Sir Gordon Downey. That tribute is echoed by all who serve on the Committee and hon. Members throughout the House. I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to ask him to draw, which he duly did, a distinction between the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the reports of our Committee. It should be placed firmly on the record that the reports of the National Audit Office are exactly that — reports made by the National Audit Office to this House. Before they appear, and indeed after they appear, as a member of the Committee I must be satisfied about two things: first, that they are totally scholarly and objective, that the facts are not in dispute but are absolutely accurate and have been agreed by the Department, and that they are brought forward in an effective and incontrovertible manner. Secondly, I want to be sure in my own mind that the subject was worth investigating in the first place, that it is neither too trival nor so diffuse as to be outside our responsibility.
I must sound a word of caution. As our responsibilities widen and as, more and more, we are taking on matters which in the old, pre-value for money days we would not have taken on, we are addressing issues that are wide, difficult and arguably within the role of other Select Committees. I refer, for example, to agricultural stock holding, to the common agricultural policy and to other matters which we have addressed and which I and, I believe, other members of the Committee had question marks in our minds about whether we should have tackled those issues at all or whether they would not have been better dealt with by a Select Committee because — I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East—they involve mainly policy. The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred, absolutely rightly, to the report on vehicle excise duty and properly put forward the point of view of his constituents.
I should like to say two things about this matter. First, the Committee did not recommend, indeed, as far as I know, the Committee has never intended to recommend, a particular option, such as rural petrol proposals. Secondly, in so acting, the Committee acted as a committee of politicians seeking consensus and a unanimous report. It may well be that the National Audit Office would have liked us to recommend a particular course of action. I do not know whether it did. I am not going to say what went on in the Committee because it would be wrong to do so. However, I remind the House that the report that appeared was the report of the Committee and not of the National Audit Office. It is important to draw a clear distinction between the two.
When sitting in Committee I often think how I would react if I were sitting at the table as the Officer of Accounts and the way in which I should attempt to answer some of the questions put to me. I often think how nice it would

be to have a witnesses' guide which, as permanent secretary, I could have beside me, as well as the pages and pages of briefing that are brought to our deliberations. What would I ask myself? First, I should say, "Take it seriously, do your homework thoroughly, assume that the Committee has actually read the documents, that hon. Members will know which questions to ask, and that they will not ask them in a partisan manner but will respond effectively and reasonably to decisive and clear answers."
Above all, apart from not acting in a cocksure or dismissive way — I hope that no permanent secretary would do that—if a mistake has been made, let him say so, clearly and simply. Let me just give one simple example where exactly that happened and where the admission was made. It comes from the report on service movements, and relates to the deplorable little incident of the wasted money on the purchase and sale of the MV Keren which is reported there but with which I will not weary the House.
I asked Sir Clive Whitmore, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Defence—a very high mandarin indeed:
Would you say on reflection that this had been a well-handled event?
Sir Clive Whitmore replied:
I do not think that it was a well-handled event.
Fair enough, absolutely right and he admitted it.
The next question is what one is to do about it and if one will be able to come back in a year's time, not on the incident that I have mentioned—that is finished—but on similar incidents, such as that of the Property Services Agency to which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred, and hear an official of a Department say that he has accepted the Committee's criticisms and recommendations and has taken action designed to put things right. After all, there have been occasions when the Committee has concluded a report by saying that it is not satisfied with a particular matter and will expect to see a considerable improvement in performance in 12 months' time.
It is well understood, both in the House and outside, that there are expectations of that kind on the part of the House and the Committee in which the House places its trust—an offer that the Committee cannot refuse. We look for those expectations to be met effectively and, if they are not, we will go back and back until the thing is put right, and, if necessary, heads will roll.
On the subject of heads rolling — and I made this point strongly to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary last year—we do not expect to have to come back year after year and discuss the same subjects. We expect our recommendations to be met by the Treasury minutes and action to be taken. When we find ourselves returning to the same subject, we must ask what has gone wrong with the Department, why the accounting officers have not done what they said they would do, and why the Minister has not insisted upon it. Ultimately the buck stops with him and his colleagues. Recommendations which are accepted in Treasury minutes are to be implemented, and implemented quickly.
I could give an example, not mentioned in debate so far, of where nonsenses of an almost hilarious kind appear, but which point a lesson and adorn a tale. This is the 17th report, dealing with the Northern Ireland appropriation accounts. It is difficult to imagine a greater cosmic, mega-yawn than that title, but in this document we find two serious matters. The first is the fact that the Industrial


Development Board for Northern Ireland was examined by this Committee on the way in which it had paid additional money to a company to persuade it to remain in Northern Ireland. Although this might be considered laudable, the officer of the board admitted under questioning that the company was thinking of moving from Northern Ireland, not to Tokyo, Bonn, or Los Angeles, but to County Durham, another part of the United Kingdom. The board paid money to keep the company in Northern Ireland, taxpayers' money, although the company wanted to move from one development area to another.
I asked who the company's main rivals were. Were they other United Kingdom companies? Mr. McAllister, the witness, said, "They would be." So the main rivals of this company to which taxpayers' money was being paid were other United Kingdom companies, who saw one of their rivals being subsidised to remain in the same place rather than move to a different part of the United Kingdom. I asked if this was a matter on which the IDB had any concern:
Is there not a risk that you will simply pay money to efficient, well-managed, profitable companies—in the words of paragraph 111—moneys which are paid for obviously by all United Kingdom taxpayers to the detriment of other United Kingdom companies?
To this Mr. McAllister replied,
We have three criteria to apply which are: viability, efficiency and additionally".
We have only recently had the equivalent of a Treasury minute, the report of the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel, and the matter is dealt with very briefly indeed. The report said that the Departments
have noted and will have in mind in case work the Committee's expectation that IDB's selective financial assistance criteria should be applied with due regard to the national, as well as the Northern Ireland regional, industrial development interest".
I shall want a lot more than "noting". When we come back to the House in 12 months' time with this, as we may well do, I shall want to be sure that we are not still dishing out taxpayers' money to keep one company competing with other companies in one area of the United Kingdom when it might have wanted to move to another.
I hope, too, that very close examination will be made of the farcical situation in the same report of the people in Northern Ireland who got compensation because they fell over the kerb stones. One of the most serious and unsatisfactory answers that I read—and heavens knows we hear and read some bad ones— was the response given to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
Have you any system to eliminate the possibility of collusion between any of your staff and claimants?
was the question, and the witness replied:
I arranged for an immediate basic systems examination from this aspect of our 6 geographic Roads Divisions, with the outcome that it is now apparent to me that in 3 of those Divisions the system falls short of what I could, as Accounting Officer, accept as fully meeting the required criterion.
There is no suggestion here that there was collusion, nor does the Committee suggest it, but the fact is that there were not adequate systems in place to prevent collusion between staff and somebody pretending that he had fallen over a stone and getting taxpayers' money for doing so.
That is the sort of tiny matter which the Public Accounts Committee drags up, tiny compared with mighty matters like De Lorean, with which we also deal. I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary takes these things seriously and has said so many times but I ask

him to let it not be doubted that there could be no more crucial role for Back Benchers than this, to prevent the waste of their constituents' money.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate as I have a particular interest as transport spokesman on the Liberal Bench. I am interested in two of the five reports. I was slightly taken aback when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) came in beside me with a whole stack of reports under his arm. Perhaps it is because I am new to the House that I was not aware that I probably should have read the whole lot and that they could be discussed tonight. So I will stick to transport and one other subject.
The first report is on the evasion and enforcement of vehicle excise duty. I was astonished to learn that 2·2 million owners evade duty at some time during the year, and I welcome the Department of Transport's assurance, which I think it gave the Committee, that it regarded evasion of £100 million a year as being too high. That is quite an understatement: I think that it is astronomically high. It is not only a serious loss of revenue. Untaxed vehicles are also frequently unroadworthy and often do not have Ministry of Transport test certificates, and drivers too are often uninsured. That raises important safety considerations.
It appeared from the report that the Department of Transport has reached something of a crossroads on the question of evasion. I believe that it was Sir Alan Bailey who pointed out that there is a limit to how much of the £99 million the Department can get back before it must spend more on enforcement than is received in revenue. I understood that, on the Department's admission, the vehicle excise duty compared unfavourably with a number of other taxes and duties that cost less in proportion to the total yield from that excise duty.
I believe that the most disappointing aspect of the report—it has been echoed by the PAC—is that there is no definitive answer on how to solve the problem posed by the vehicle licence. It seems that either more staff must be employed—the process would then rapidly become non-cost-effective—or people should go round clamping vehicles that appear to be unlicensed to establish ownership and licence status. I believe that that was what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—he has since left the Chamber—was advocating. I am not especially keen on the idea as I believe that then our roads would be cluttered with clamped vehicles.
In paragraph 15 of the report, the Committee stated that it was not provided with any information about
calculations or considerations on which all of the possible alternatives to VED have again been rejected".
An idea has been floating for a while to abolish the vehicle excise duty in favour of an increased petrol tax. That would transfer cost to the use of a car rather than ownership. To a certain extent, it would contribute to fuel conservation. There is no doubt that the £100 car licence is a considerable disincentive to many people who wish to own a car, especially in areas where the public transport service is poor. The abolition of the vehicle licence would be welcomed by those living on small islands, especially by my constituents of Argyll and Bute and those of my hon.
Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). There is very little in the way of roads on those islands.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): They are small islands.

Mrs. Michie: Yes, indeed. Often one can travel from one end of an island to the other fairly speedily in a car.
I understand that, in 1979, Stephen Potter of the Open University carried out research on petrol tax. He said that on average, if an increased petrol tax was imposed, 50 per cent, of people would be worse off, but he also showed that rural motorists—contrary to their belief—did not incur a higher than average mileage. I find that hard to believe. However, Mr. Potter said that higher income leads to higher mileage.
I hasten to add that the idea of putting a tax on petrol carries all sorts of problems and dangers. My constituency is a large rural area of 3,000 sq miles and it has a coastline longer than that of France. Naturally, I would be extremely worried about the effects of an increase in the duty placed on petrol. Of course, the further north one goes, the higher the price of petrol and I accept that there are tremendous variations throughout the country, but, nevertheless, the knock-on effect of an increase in duty in rural areas would be considerable given that transport and living costs are already extremely high. I understand from the report that the decision on alternatives to the excise duty has not been permanently settled and I look forward to hearing about new ideas. We should always be prepared to consider such ideas.
I am also interested in the 19th report entitled "Expenditure on Motorways and Trunk Roads". I welcome the fact that the PAC recognises that there is a fundamental disagreement between the Department of Transport and the local authorities on their respective responsibilities. The Committee said that there was a need for change.
I agree with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that there are important practical, financial and manpower advantages to be gained from transferring the responsibility for trunk roads to local authorities—for trunk roads, I hasten to add, not motorways. I understand that in some English counties one road may pass through several counties before joining another. However, it would make sense to transfer the responsibility to local authorities because, as the Committee noted, bypasses and relief road schemes form the greater proportion of the overall road programme. In my estimation, local authorities are better placed to judge, understand and be sensitive to local needs. Such a move would result in the devolution of power, and that has always been advocated by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend is dealing with the important matter of public expenditure. What does she think about the directive from the Scottish Office that was sent to the Orkney Islands council? It stated that the 60 mph warning signs that had been put on the roads without Scottish Office approval should be taken down pending consideration by the Scottish Office and, if approved, to be re-erected. Does my hon. Friend think that that directive will result in the good use of public money?

Mrs. Michie: I agree that it does not sound very helpful. Perhaps that matter should be referred to the PAC.
If responsibility for trunk roads was transferred to local authorities, the Department of Transport would look less like a department for roads. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that large Department has given appropriate consideration to the views of local authorities. Meanwhile, I believe that the Department should rank schemes in order of priority on a financial basis, so that the maintenance of roads—the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has already said that such maintenance has been starved of funds for many years— can occur at the right time and in the right place. Surely that would save money in the long run.
I wish to spend some time commenting on another report that has nothing to do with transport, the 44th report on preventive medicine, in which I am interested as a former employee of the NHS. I welcome the report and I agree with its recommendation that there should be encouragement for an increase in immunisation, which is so important for our youngsters. I am sure that the Committee was wise to deplore the delays in introducing a comprehensive arrangement for an effective screening against cervical cancer. Each year many women die of that disease, and it is essential to set up a proper recall system, well-woman clinics—

Mr. Graham Allen: We have had that system for 20 years and it is still not working properly.

Mrs. Michie: I believe that it does.
Debating the report on preventive medicine is timely, and must be somewhat awkward for the Government, who have just announced that patients—with the exception of some categories—will no longer receive a free NHS sight test. One of the report's conclusions refers to the major importance of achieving improvements in the health of the nation through preventive rather than curative medicine. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have chosen to do what they have done with sight testing just at a time when requests were being made to have the three tests that are necessary for the detection of glaucoma routinely carried out in all people over the age of 40. No symptoms help to detect the desease in its early stages, and it is estimated that 150,000 people have undetected glaucoma in this country. The disease is insidious and leads eventually to blindness. How many more people will get it now?
The Government should look again at what I believe to be a retrograde step and accept the recommendations of the report. They should seek information on the costs and benefits of a preventive programme for the detection of glaucoma before introducing—or even if they introduce—the charges. Then perhaps the Public Accounts Committee could examine the matter and see whether such a programme would be cost-effective.
I commend the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and all the Committee's members for producing as a result of a tremendous amount of work these interesting and worthwhile reports.

Mr. Michael Morris: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that, of all the work


one does in the House, the work of the Public Accounts Committee—I have served on it for nearly 10 years—is by far the most satisfying, apart from that for one's constituents. My hon. Friend touched on one or two general points about the Committee's work which I want to develop before I dig into one or two of the reports. Before I do that, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for the fact that I shall not stick to the best five reports that have been selected, because I think there are other interesting areas to discuss.
On the general aspect of our work, the time has come—perhaps the opportunity arises now with the impending appointment of a new Comptroller and Auditor General—to examine the way in which we handle the work before us. I am conscious of the increased workload and I am not whingeing about it. However, I am concerned that we should spend our time on the Committee on the real issues of bad management and examining things that have gone badly wrong. I do not want to spend a Monday or a Wednesday evening covering ground that is fairly amorphous, when there does not seem to be any particular point at issue and, in effect, we are following up a report that the Comptroller and Auditor General felt should be of interest to Parliament. Undoubtedly, they are all subjects of interest on various aspects of life in Parliament. However, as my hon. Friend said, the review of agricultural policy was one topic about which I complained vociferously, because it did not seem to me an appropriate subject for the Public Accounts Committee; and I add to that the recent work on a report produced on the TSB, which I thought was wholly out of court.
For the benefit of the incoming Comptroller and Auditor General, I say that the Committee has been very patient about one or two of the offerings it has received. When the new Comptroller takes office, I shall be a good deal less patient if we find his Department investigating areas that may just possibly fall within the provinces that Parliament has given him but which are not of much interest to hon. Members.
The Committee will also look in depth at the quality of some of the work done on areas that are relevant. I declare an interest as an owner of some small woodlands before saying that when we examined the forestry report and the economic analysis done by some organisation, it was not surprising that there was a major reaction from all the forestry interests—public and private—because the quality of the work was well below what we expected from that office.
My hon. Friends were right to raise the problem of the green reports versus the blue reports. The Comptroller and Auditor General produces his report on an issue which receives press coverage—sometimes of considerable length. Some weeks—perhaps some months—later, the Committee examines the report and may well disagree with it entirely, coming up with wholly different recommendations. The coverage that those recommendations receive is conspicuous by its absence and the public is misled into believing that Parliament has agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a serious matter which we need to examine closely as a Committee so as to find an answer to it. After all, it took me five years to persuade my colleagues to put a report's conclusions at the front so that they can be found, rather than hiding them away in the middle. We have now made that major step forward, but there is room for further work.
I note that the amendment to the motion has not been selected today, and I do not necessarily agree with its detail. However, it is unacceptable that 35 reports from 1985–86 and another 19 from 1986–87 should be debated in one sitting. We must find a better way of dealing with these reports, which are important. We need a considered minute from the Treasury. I say to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that I greatly welcome the improvement in the Treasury minutes that we are now receiving. There was a time, early on in my period on the Committee, when, if one got more than five lines in response from the Treasury, one knew that one had hit a bull's eye. Now, we receive considered responses, which is enormously welcome. I thank my right hon. Friend for doing his bit to ensure that that happens.
The incoming Comptroller and Auditor General would be well advised to remember—as would Departments of State—that another aspect of the Committee has changed. We now follow up reports and have an automatic checking system, operating on a two-year cycle, to ensure that, if we have given a critical report, the actions that we have recommended have been acted upon—we do not forget.
I want to delve into one or two of the reports. The first that I want to examine is the 39th report of 1985–86, which was on the Rayner scrutiny programmes. It is a short report, but if I was to recommend any report to hon. Members, this would be it. I remember that there was enormous scepticism in the press—Left, Right and middle—about the usefulness of the Rayner scrutiny. There was great scepticism about whether anyone could come in from outside and put forward proposals that would be worth while. Certainly, the impression given by civil servants at the time was that the world of Government was a very different one, and that they were not likely to be taught much by a mere retailer.
It is interesting to note that in the summary of conclusions and recommendations we say that we were satisfied that the arrangements for these reviews had been highly cost-effective and that they were a valuable way of securing a rapid and positive response to problems. We certainly looked at this in great depth. We went on to say that success depended on choosing worthwhile topics, and that the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency and the efficiency unit had an important role to play.
We note that many Ministers rejected areas for analysis. Perhaps we should have another review of this. We should underline the point in our recommendations that we trust that the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency will continue to monitor the acceptance or rejection of recommendations, and that he will be prepared to intervene should any be rejected unreasonably.
In the report we say that even a six-month delay in the implementation of the recommendations had cost the public about £300 million. That is a huge sum of money by any yardstick for a relatively short period. We say that we endorse the continuing arrangements for scrutinies and that the success of the scrutinies depends on the backing of the Prime Minister. It is good that the Prime Minister has supported this during the whole of her period in office. One problem is still outstanding and it is not fully addressed in the Treasury minute. It is the problem of overlap between Departments and further work needs to be carried out on that. So much for the Rayner programmes.
The National Health Service is a fund of information for the Public Accounts Committee. Again I declare an interest, because I am married to a general practitioner. Inevitably, that means that I get very involved in the questioning of the accounting officers who regularly come to the Committee in relation to the National Health Service. We have slightly fewer reports on the National Health Service than we have had on other occasions—perhaps on a smaller scale.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was quite right in what she said about our report on preventive medicine. There is no doubt in the minds of Committee members that screening for cervical cancer and the immunisation programmes are of great importance. Those of us connected with the National Health Service know the value of that work. We certainly know its benefit in terms of value for money—if one can put it in that way when talking about the lives of children, or for that matter about the life of anyone.
The Treasury minute talks about the planning and review system by regional health authorities following on from the DHSS. It suggests that the priorities for preventive programmes should be laid down by the DHSS. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State that, while those are good words and that that is what should happen, it is undoubtedly not happening. I shall urge my colleagues on the Committee to have another look at this, because it is not working very well.
There is a rather weak response from the DHSS about cost-benefit analysis. Its response is that cost-benefit analysis would be very useful but that it is not too sure that it could achieve it in preventive medicine. The Department spends millions of pounds through the research councils and should be able to find some yardstick that gives us some response about cost-benefit analysis. I long for the day when we can get the Department responding as it should in that area.
The other report on the National Health Service is about value-for-money developments and energy conservation. We say that there must be continual vigilance to ensure that the cost-benefit savings that are being achieved will continue to be achieved. There is little point in having a cost-benefit saving in year one and then to discover that somebody has forgotten all about it by year three. We emphasise that, if a district health authority decides to cut a service, that should clearly be separate from a cost-improvement programme.
I was reassured by the Treasury minute when I say that the Department is vigilant to check that claimed cost improvements are just that, and are not a cut in service. The report speaks about the need for further Rayner-type scrutinies in the National Health Service. Of all our services, the Health Service remains one of the most fertile grounds for Rayner-type inquiries.
There are two reports about exporting. Many years ago I wrote a pamphlet for the Bow Group about helping the exporter, and I have kept a keen interest in exporting. The 28th report from the 1985–86 session is called "Export Credits Guarantee Department" and the 18th report from the 1986–87 Session is called "Government Services to Exporters Overseas". On a number of occasions we have questioned the accounting officer at some length and have discussed the problems of the ECGD.
We have recognised that past decisions of the ECGD have resulted in a huge potential cost to the public sector. We must recognise that that cost probably still has to come home to roost. I do not pretend that anything can be done about that, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the future marketing strategy of the ECGD is crucial in order to ensure that we do not run up losses on the scale that we have had in the past. It is also crucial in the sense that it still provides a vital service for many of the nation's exporters.
The service is important to the part of the world that you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, know well, south-east Asia, where ECGD cover is often a key factor for exporters. It would be entirely wrong if, because of earlier decisions about certain other large trading areas, exporters to south-east Asia were to be penalised. The House still awaits a clear statement from the ECGD about its exact marketing strategy for the future. It needs a strategy as opposed to a hand-to-mouth attempt to reduce the cost damage to the public sector borrowing requirement.
The Treasury response to the report "Government Services to Exporters Overseas" is probably the worst Treasury minute that we have before us. It is critical of the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), keen and diligent as he is, has read every paragraph of the reports. When I read again paragraph 72 of the Treasury minute on the 18th report, I thought it worth quoting:
However, the Report does not give full weight to the range and extent of further improvements already made or under way, nor does it take full account of oral evidence given to the Committee. The FCO and DTI have been conducting for some time a series of major studies of individual components of the export promotion effort.
The next paragraph says:
The studies include market research on exporters' requirements; on their perceptions of the official services and how they relate to exporters' needs; and consideration of the adequacy and allocation of resources".
That is a cheeky answer to a serious report. The Public Account Committee questioned diligently the accounting officer. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will read our report again. We said strongly that we were not convinced that the right balance had been achieved or that we knew where we were going in export promotion. If the only thing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can come up with is a little market research, that is not an adequate response to a serious report.
The Ministry of Defence joins the NHS as one of our most popular candidates for inquiry. The 21st report, 1985–86, deals with the dockyards, a subject which brings a sigh of disbelief from all hon. Members. If a naval ship is to be repaired late and over budget, it should go into the dockyards. I think there was a recognition in all parts of the House that something had to be done to improve the efficiency of the dockyards. It was not for the PAC to comment on policy. We made the important distinction in our report that the Government's proposals for the dockyards were not privatisation but the infusion of commercial management. We highlighted that important difference.
Two other aspects that we pulled out as being of concern for the future of the commercial management are still under question. The House does not yet know whether the targets set for the interim management measures before the commercial managers took over were achieved.
One suspects that they probably were not. In our report we also highlighted the extraordinary establishment of the directorate general of ship refitting. That body was to continue to monitor the work being done on naval ships. We are all for monitoring, but when we were told in the Committee that the monitoring would require a budget of £11 million and no fewer than 800 bodies, we were right to question whether it was needed. I suspect that the Committee will want to have another go at that. For the life of me I cannot think what 800 people will be doing in monitoring work which we all hoped would be done more efficiently than in the past.
The nationalised industries are a pet hobby of mine. A disappointing feature of the National Audit Act 1983, in whose passage I was happy to play a role, was that we had to give way to pressure from the chairmen of nationalised industries to exclude them from the Act. We had to give way on that to get the rest of the meal. We got the rest of the meal but the exclusion of the nationalised industries was wrong in principle and the House will have to come back to it. The 36th report that we produced was encouraging in that we found that at last Departments of State were beginning to learn what the nationalised industries were doing.
The very success of privatisation, whether it is liked or not by the Opposition, means that the number of nationalised industries available for scrutiny is greatly reduced. When the privatisation programme has gone a long way down its course—we hope that it will go a very long way—the House should have another go at ensuring that those industries which remain in the public sector come into the orbit of the Public Accounts Committee.
The Committee has studied vehicle excise duty evasion and enforcement several times. We recognise that we have not yet had great success in catching those who avoid paying the tax. Like other hon. Members, I suspect, I get letters about the dog licence. It is difficult to imagine having a mileage tax on dog movements as an alternative to the dog licence. Motor vehicles are supposed to display a licence, and the licences are supposed to be checked. But even when offenders are caught, we do not succeed in getting the tax. My position is clear. If we have so much trouble collecting the vehicle excise licence duty, how can we collect dog licences? The Government are right to drop dog licences.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to follow the references of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) to the dockyards. It gives me the opportunity to set out a dilemma for some Labour Members of the Public Accounts Committee.
I listened with great care to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Committee, when he referred to our objectives in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Those words were put very well by the Comptroller and Auditor General during our proceedings last week when he referred to the fact that we never challenged policy. Although we never challenge policy, it is often difficult to assess matters objectively when at some stage outside the Committee one has to consider the social implications of a report or of a line of questioning in the Committee.
It was brought home to me most effectively when I went to Devonport following the questioning during the Public Accounts Committee's examination of that subject. While I was in Devonport, I sat in my hotel one night thinking about it. It struck me that the word "effectiveness" has all sorts of implications. It means many different things to many people. If we widen the arguments about effectiveness, to some extent we undermine that objective of public accounting in terms of being objective about the careful, efficient, effective and economic use of public resources. I draw attention to that because it has caused a dilemma in a number of reports, including the report on cost improvement programmes in the National Health Service. While we annually examine supply estimates and follow public moneys in the Public Accounts Committee, security service expenditure has never been questioned or examined by any House of Commons Committee.
I have seen with regret a report that an injunction has been taken out against a Radio 4 programme which examines whether there should be accountability to Parliament for security services expenditure and whether it could be introduced without undermining the security services. I do not intend to press that. Suffice it to say that I regret that the injunction has been taken out, because many people who made reasonable and sensible contributions based on the most objective assessments of the matter will now not be heard on that very wide-ranging programme.
I want to deal with one or two reports in a wider context. Cost improvement programmes are set out in the 47th report, entitled "Value for Money Developments in the National Health Service". In paragraph 6 we say:
We noted that in 1981–82 DHSS called for concerted action at local level to achieve better VFM by setting annual target savings intended to increase efficiency. However, since the cash savings achieved were not necessarily a true indication of increased efficiency, from 1984–85 DHSS replaced these efficiency savings by CIPs. The purpose of the latter was to identify measures 'aimed at releasing cash or manpower used in providing a service by getting the same service output for a smaller input of resources'.
We went on to say:
In short authorities were required to carry through programmes aimed at making services more efficient and effective thus releasing resources for improvements and new developments. But services were not to be cut.
In paragraph 9 we said:
Since it is clearly of crucial importance to ensure that cuts in services are not passed off as genuine cost improvements …
We went on to ask DHSS some more questions. I refer to what constitutes a cost improvement programme and whether it is fair to call it a cost improvement programme, despite the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by civil servants who invariably maintain that cuts are not taking place in the National Health Service;. The cost improvement programme work set by district health authorities for district hospitals has led to many reports by various organisations. I refer to the report of the Health Service managers to the Mersey region of the Institute of Health Service Management, which refers to a number of what can only be described as cuts.
If in pursuit of the efficient use of resources, pressing the principle of cost improvement programmes, all we get are the cuts outlined in the report, the cost improvement programmes are failing. The report quotes some examples in the Mersey health region:
Withdrawal of night/weekend clerical cover in Accident Department; reduction in cooked meals to one per day; use


of powdered milk for cooking in place of fresh; reduction of night catering service; reduction in range on menu; elimination of cooked meals at weekend and evenings; introduction of nominal charge for in-patient food; review and reduce cleaning frequencies in clinical areas; increased flexibility between domestic staff and nursing auxiliaries.
Many cuts are being passed off as efficiencies brought about by the implemenatation of cost improvement programmes. The report refers to:
Consideration of 5-day wards for gynae, surgery, ENT, obstetric; review and closure of satellite peripheral OPDs and centralise services; review level of attendances at immunisation and vaccination and other child health clinics; rationalise or reduce services; restriction of prescriptions to one week for patients being discharged; discontinue early discharge packs given to all maternity patients; return to traditional bedpans; withdraw contract shaving services to patients, now done by volunteers; provision by patients of their own talcum powder and dental cleaning materials; encourage maternity patients to provide their own nappies; remove nursing support from doctors undertaking school medicals.
I will not go any further, but there is a whole list of what can only be described as cuts which are being passed off as efficiency savings under the cost improvement programmes of the National Health Service.
It seems to me that the language is all mixed up, and far more effective monitoring should be done by DHSS officials nationally of what is happening on the shop floor of hospitals. Hardly a week goes by when hon. Members do not express concern over reductions of services in their areas. Very often those reductions in services can be traced back to district health authorities and the excuse is the introduction of cost improvement programmes with a view to saving money. I suggest to the Ministers that those areas bear closer examination.
The 19th report on "Expenditure on Motorways and Trunk Roads" and the report on "Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion and Enforcement" relate to the failures of the Department on the one hand to gather revenue due to it and on the other hand to use revenue available to it for improving roads. In paragraph 19 of the report on roads and motorways we say:
While expenditure on maintenance might therefore have been expected to take a larger share of the programme, it had in practice remained fairly constant at around 25 per cent, of total expenditure.
We were worried that repairs were not being carried out, as the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) pointed out, which was causing arrears in road improvements, and that this was false economy because at the end of the day it would probably lead to increased expenditure. In paragraph 20 we said:
To achieve value for money in road maintenance it is important to resurface at the optimum time, to prevent undue deterioration leading to premature reconstruction…A continuing failure to 'spend now and save later' would incur substantial additional real costs and there would be continued disruption, inconvenience and associated costs for industry and the travelling public…We consider it most unsatisfactory that maintenance of roads has been starved of funds for many years…and we note DTp's assurance that they will be able to clear the backlog on motorways within six years. But we remain concerned that they are less certain about the extent of the backlog on trunk roads, and the prospect for clearing it up.
My view is that, despite the assurances, the backlog will become greater, in particular on trunk roads. Certain areas such as my constituency and vast parts of Scotland are covered not by motorways but by trunk roads. Such areas are reliant on a road network which, according to our

report, may well further deteriorate as resources go elsewhere in the transport budget. As the figure of 25 per cent, remains fairly constant, how shall we get over that?
Let me make a prediction. The Department of Transport is involved in assessing the possibility of introducing tolls on roads. What alerted me to that was a conversation that I had with an official some three months ago. That led to me raising some questions with a Department of Transport official during the course of our proceedings last week when we were examining the burden of lorries on roads. He would not answer my questions. He would not be drawn on whether work was being done in the Department of Transport on tolls for roads or motorways in the United Kingdom. It is likely that within one or two years there will be a statement in Parliament on the introduction of some form of toll system on our motorways. It may not be too long before a person coming off the motorway at the Scratchwood service station is confronted by some sort of European style toll station to collect his pounds as he sets off on the motorway to Birmingham.
Unless the Government build support resources into their expenditure plans at this stage to deal with the backlog, particularly in trunk roads, they will be faced with the need to take a panic decision at some stage in the near future. That panic decision will be the implementation of work that is now being done in the Department on tolls on Britain's roads.
I want to deal briefly with what is happening in our prisons and with what I regard as a false economy. I do not want to deal with work done by prisoners or other matters that have already been raised; I am referring to conditions in prisons, and how bad conditions in prison have the effect of alienating people so that they are not properly rehabilitated. The persistent alienation of people in Britain's prisons has adverse implications for society when they are released. That is particularly true for public expenditure because crime costs money and has implications for policing.
Such matters may appear remote, but if Britain is to have a proper prison service its objective must be the real rehabilitation of people and that costs money. Someone somewhere must work out the relationship between the benefit that derives from an efficient and properly managed and funded prison service with the objective of rehabilitation and the cost and crime implications if no action is taken.
I brought out one simple statistic during the course of my questioning which was the subject of a further memorandum to the Department. We were talking about what we call slopping out in Britain's prisons. We were told that there were 41,200 certified places in British prisons today, of which approximately 22,000 have neither integral sanitation nor some means of access to sanitation. Because of the overcrowding of the cells, the average number of sloppings out in 1985 was about 26,000, out of an average total prison population of 46,200.
We then went on to talk about the modernisation programme and it was said that
On the basis of the building schemes at present in progress or planned, there will be just under 20,000 places in 1991 still lacking access to sanitation"— 
that is nearly half.
By 1999"— 
in 12 years' time—
that number will have fallen to about 15,600".


That means that by 1999, the end of the century, one third of Britain's prisons population will still be slopping out.
This might appear an ugly subject to raise during our debate, but it is a sign of the problems in our prisons. If as part of their so-called rehabilitation prisoners will still have to slop out in 12 years' time, the economies are false. We are not pursuing a realistic policy of rehabilitation that has future public expenditure implications for the Government, and, in particular, for their law and order policies.
Finally, I want to raise what I regard as a cause celebre on which I spent a lot of my time some 15 months ago. Indeed, over the past year a number of new cases have been brought to me. I am talking about whistle blowers and their role in identifying those defence contractors who are cheating the taxpayer by overcharging for their services where people—as in the case of Mr. Jim Smith, to which I am about to refer—lose their livelihood and in effect ruin their lives because they have stood up for a principle.
It is now several years since I raised the question of Mr. Jim Smith, a former employee of Aish and Company of Poole, major defence contractors at that stage employing some 2,000 people and a subsidiary of the Horstmann group. Mr. Smith alleges that he told Ministry of Defence officials in 1981 that his company was overcharging the Ministry of Defence. He has spent every year since 1981—I have spoken to him again today—trying to prove that his whistle blowing led to a saving to the taxpayer of over £1 million, £400,000 of which was repaid by that company.
The whole saga of the Smith affair is one of delay, denial and the direct misleading of Parliament by civil servants. I am talking not about officials who gave evidence to our Committee but about officials who made reports to their senior civil servants in the Ministry of Defence. There are four and they were identified by me during the proceedings of the PAC when I raised this matter with Mr. Haig, a civil servant whom I was questioning.
In evidence submitted to us, the MOD maintained that it first became aware of the extent of the profits earned by the firm as the result of a meeting with the company, held at its instigation in March 1982. Mr. Smith denies that. He maintains that he informed the Department.
The whole case seems to turn on the simple question whether Mr. Smith communicated to the MOD in that period following his dismissal information which would enable the MOD to establish whether excess profits had been made. It is my view that he did and that Mr. F. C. Brady, the principal director of MOD accountancy services, Mr. Alf Blyth, the former head of MOD contracts policy branch, Mr. Harry Turner, the former assistant director of MOD accountancy, Mr. Frank McGrath, a senior member of the MOD cost department, Mr. D. B. Cox, the director of contracts at the MOD and Mr. A. J. Figes, principal director of navy contracts, and Mr. George Haldane, the MOD accountant at Aish, all know the truth. They all know what happened.
Mr. Smith supplied to me at my request a sworn affidavit setting out his case and I presented it to the PAC, which then asked that those particular civil servants should be asked what happened. It was interesting to note the evasive way in which they replied and, if they were not evasive, the way in which they set out to deny the truth. I choose my words carefully. Perhaps they thought that

their jobs would be on the line, if they were still employed—or their pensions, if they had retired—were they to make open and honest statements. I appeal to them, even at this late stage, to come forward. While they refuse to tell the truth, Mr. Smith does not find work, and he and his family are continually pressed, by these matters. Yet they know that he is supported by a series of first-class character references, including one from within the Ministry of Defence.
In my view, the Smith affair has not ended. His example led to further whistle blowers surfacing in the form of Mir. Don Pitman of Thorn EMI and Mr. Burgess-Cooper of Doughty Rotell, who similarly had a squalid deal, although the Public Accounts Committee said in its 25th report that the MOD should give the fullest consideration to such people. In the Treasury minutes in reply, the MOD said it would always be prepared carefully to consider any information furnished on such matters, and the circumstances in which such information was furnished. Yet, in the case of Mr. Burgess-Cooper, a substantial repayment—in the sum of £400,000, I am told—was made to the MOD. Mr. Burgess-Cooper is unemployed and cannot find work.
What will happen to such people? Are they to remain unemployed for the rest of their lives? Are they never to be compensated? We now have the case of Marconi. We have two whistle blowers in this instance. Some hon. Members may know who they are; certainly the MOD knows. I believe that the information provided by whistle blowers in the case of Marconi may well save the country not millions, not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of pounds. Those are substantial amounts, and I believe that, when people are willing to surface in this way—to prejudice their lifestyles and the position of their families, and often lose their homes—they deserve very special consideration by the MOD.
I am calling for the implementation of the recommendation in our PAC report, which was approved of in a Treasury minute. Those people are out there setting an example for others. If they are protected, others will come forward in other areas of procurement, be it the National Health Service or defence.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear what he is proposing? Is he proposing that whistle blowers should be paid a bounty—a percentage of what they bring in?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am proposing what is proposed in the PAC report: that when people surface to give information, the position should be carefully considered, and compensation should not be ruled out if a loss of livelihood is involved. I think that that is a very fair proposition.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the work of his Committee. I am not sure whether I should congratulate him or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on having chosen tonight for the debate. I was told by the staff in the Vote Office that the cost of each set of papers needed for the debate was some £380. By choosing a night when there are not so many hon. Members in the House, my right hon. Friend must already have contributed a fair amount of savings to the public purse.
I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who pointed out that, when things go wrong, heads may well have to roll. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to commend the work of the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, who is in a privileged position. His head does not roll, or at any rate does not roll easily, as I discovered when I first arrived in the House, and was rather surprised to receive a freely distributed glossy brochure containing a colour photograph of the Comptroller and Auditor General. He described himself in the brochure as the public's watchdog against waste and extravagance. I have not seen a repetition of that coloured brochure, so perhaps my demand for his head on that occasion at least achieved a slight reduction in future costs.
Before I comment on the 44th report, let me briefly mention the 19th. I am not sure whether the Committee is aware that the Department of Transport proposes to alter the role of the professional engineer in determining the cost of contract variations. I feel that the Government should take great care in proposing any changes in the system, which could well cost rather more than they are attempting to achieve in savings. We have already heard about unfortunate episodes of corruption in the Property Services Agency. The less that civil servants have to do with the detailed negotiation of contract variations and with the execution of engineering itself, the better, in my view. I feel that there is much to be gained from sticking with the traditional method of working, as at present.
The 44th report covers preventive medicine. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke of costs of £600 million. The report calls for more cost-benefit analysis, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). In their reply, the Government said that it was difficult to make a cost-benefit analysis. However, let me draw the attention of the House to the White Paper promoting better health, which very opportunely came out last week. Paragraph 1.9 lists many of the benefits from previous preventive campaigns. It mentions smallpox, diphtheria and tetanus as former killer diseases which have been virtually eradicated, and states:
The danger from polio has almost gone and great advances have been made in the fight against tuberculosis…perinatal mortality has fallen by 46 per cent, in the last 10 years…On dental health…nearly half of all children under five years old now have no decay at all.
Perhaps a little analysis could be made of the value of those benefits, as a start in trying to evaluate the cost-benefit analysis of further preventive medicine work. I do not believe that it is as difficult as was made out in the report.
The White Paper goes on to say that a massive amount can still be done to reduce the incidence of disease, and quotes a number of causes of illness:
a quarter of young people are overweight…alcohol is a factor in 1 in 3 of all attendances by men at hospital accident and emergency departments…100,000 deaths each year caused by smoking".
On coronary heart disease—

Mr. Allen: Which PAC report is the hon. Gentleman quoting?

Mr. Thurnham: I have been quoting from the recommendations of the 44th PAC report, which calls for

cost-benefit analysis on preventive medicine. The Government's response, both in the original papers with which we have been provided and in the White Paper, draws attention to the benefits that result from greater preventive measures.
Let me refer more briefly to the Government's response concerning deaths from coronary heart disease. We were pleased to have a visit in Bolton from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, although we wondered what headline the paper might use. Perhaps she had the "Look After your Heart" campaign in mind when she was asked whether she had smoked as a schoolgirl, and replied that she had been too busy reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover"—which, of course, provided the headline.
The challenge now facing the Government is to change the emphasis in the National Health Service from illness service to true health service, offering help to prevent disease and disability. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee referred to two aspects of the Committee's report. First, he stressed the importance of the cervical cancer campaign. Secondly, he referred to the need for higher immunisation rates for rubella, measles and whooping cough. Page 14 of the White Paper shows that measles and whooping cough immunisation rates have risen from under 50 per cent, in 1976 to approximately 70 per cent, in 1986.
I ask the Government to give more help to those who suffer after immunisation has gone wrong. Whooping cough immunisation can lead in a small number of cases to severe brain damage. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to a distressing constituency case that relates to the cervical cancer campaign. During the election campaign I met a constituent of mine, Mrs. Sharrock, of Archer Grove in Tonge, who has to care for a daughter very severely affected by brain damage caused by a whooping cough immunisation that went wrong.
I ask the Government to ensure that such people are better provided for. They should be more generous in compensating the victims of such accidents. That would encourage more people to be immunised and would lead to greater benefits for us all. If an accident can be attributed to negligence and it leads to a court case, damages amounting to £500,000 might be awarded. As it is, those who have suffered an accident such as this are obliged to manage on a very small sum of money, although they are coping with severe difficulties and very great burdens.
It is important that more people should be immunised against rubella. A Bill is to be introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). If abortions cannot take place after 18 weeks, many more handicapped children will be born. My research shows that there are up to 3,000 severely handicapped children in residential care. Their natural parents are unable to cope with the severity of their children's handicap. It is nonsense to suggest that parents are queuing up to adopt or to foster such children.
One of the most important tasks for the Government is to make people more aware of the benefits of preventive medicine. Page 26 of the report states that
Adding fluoride to water supplies is a safe and effective way of reducing dental decay and the need for fillings. The benefits of fluoridation, which extend into adult life, are greatest for children, particularly those in deprived areas".
Much more should be done to promote such benefits.
In areas such as Bolton a minority of people are nervous about the effects of fluoridation. They believe that fluoridation poses unknown or even real hazards, with the result that they campaign against fluoridation. In some parts of the country, people have voted against fluoridation. If the White Paper is right and fluoridation is safe, more should be done to allay their fears.
On 25 November my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said that he would be negotiating with the medical profession for improved services in inner-city areas. He also said that primary health care services in some of our inner city areas are very poor. This is the single most important measure that the Government could introduce to improve health care in such areas. Therefore, I urge the Government to do all that is in their power to promote the advantages of preventive care and to provide additional facilities and assistance to both general practitioners and dental practitioners.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I wish to raise a case in my constituency that highlights the 25th report of the Public Accounts Committee on the prison building programme. This case highlights the problems that were referred to in that report. I refer to the strategic planning procedures and the failure of the Home Office and the Property Services Agency over the design and the refurbishment of prisons.
In my constituency there is Medomsley prison. The first week after I became a Member of Parliament in June of this year, I was told that the designation of that prison was to be changed from a detention centre to a category C prison. In October 1987, I was notified that the newly designated prison was to be closed. That prison has now been closed.
When I visited Medomsley prison on 26 June, I saw that a large amount of public money had been spent on bringing it up to date. Work continued after my visit to bring that building up to standard and to ensure that it was fit to be used as a category C prison. However, Medomsley prison has now been closed. The long-term future of that prison has not yet been decided, so work on it has continued. There are rumours—I stress that they are rumours, which I heard only this afternoon, so I have had no opportunity to check them—that the prison was visited yesterday by a Home Office official who gave instructions that no more money was to be spent on the work in hand—a new kitchen block—and that therefore the work should stop. If that is so, the problems that have been highlighted in this report are compounded by the example that I have just given.
We are entitled to inquire, therefore, whether public money has been wasted. According to this report, the Home Office gave evidence that it was on top of its general planning. We must ask whether the Home Office's general planning has been as effective as it led the Public Accounts Committee to think. Furthermore, we are entitled to ask whether there is a strategic plan, which includes Medomsley, or whether the prison service and the Home Office are reacting hurriedly, precisely because the planning has been far from adequate.
I am worried about other matters that affect my constituency. Medomsley prison has had a fair amount of support from people in the locality. It is an area of high unemployment, and jobs are at a premium. I hope, therefore, that my fears are unfounded and that there are

long-term plans for that establishment. As a considerable amount of public money has been spent on it during the last few years, I hope that the assurances that were given to the Public Accounts Committee about the prison building programme will be reaffirmed in the case of Medomsley prison.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Several hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The spokesmen on the Government and Opposition Front Benches would like to reply to the debate at about 9.25. The arithmetic is fairly obvious—approximately 32 minutes.

Mr. John Watts: I intend to confine my remarks to the 45th report of the Public Accounts Committee, on the financial control and accountability of the Metropolitan police.
The efficiency of the Metropolitan police has implications for other police forces outside the Metropolitan area. The Home Secretary determines the national limit on police manpower. He also decides whether there is to be an increase in police manpower within the overall national limit. During the last eight years there has been a substantial increase in police manpower, reflecting the high priority that the present Government attach to law and order. Thanks to the restructuring of police pay, police forces are typically close to their approved establishment levels. There is no longer the acute difficulty in recruiting and retraining police officers that was experienced before 1979.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in reply to a question from me earlier today, the Thames Valley force, which is the force of particular concern to me, has enjoyed the largest increase of any force outside London over the past few years. Since its formation in 1968, its manpower has increased by 507, or 17 per cent., but the population that it serves has increased by more than 23 per cent, in the same period. Consequently, the ratio of police to population in the area, starting from a low base, has continued to deteriorate and remains the worst in the country. On any other criterion of measurement, whether it be area to be policed, levels of reported crime, road mileage or accidents reported, the Thames Valley force is substantially under strength.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a peculiar security problem with regard to the number o f special people that the force has to protect?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, because not only under normal criteria is the force under strength, but it has additional duties because of royal residences and duties with regard to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
On a mean average of those criteria, the force would need an extra 781 officers to raise its establishment to the average of other provisional forces such as Hampshire, Sussex, Kent or Essex. That is why I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to approve the application for 200 additional officers this year and 700 over a period of four years, which the authority has requested.
The force is in the forefront of civilianisation—trying to release police officers for front-line policing duties by


substituting civilians. It was my knowledge of the Thames Valley police and the importance of civilianisation in this process that led to my interest in the conclusions of the PAC's report about the process of civilianisation in the Metropolitan police. The report tells us that between 650 and 750 posts fall into the category of jobs occupied by police officers that do not require any police training or powers. The report says that, in addition, the Metropolitan police have identified functions carried out by a further 600 or 700 police officers that appear to be suitable for contracting out or transfer to other agencies. Thus, that substitution of civilians for police officers would enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to approve an increase in the establishment of the Thames Valley force, which would bring it up to the average of its peer group.
I am neither so naive nor so parochial as to expect that, even if those 1,400 police officers in the Metropolitan police were released by civilianisation, the extra 700 that we want in the Thames Valley force would automatically be provided. My right hon. Friend will have to consider all demands for increased manpower, including those of the Metropolitan police, and allocate increased establishments in accordance with objective priorities.
Wearing his other hat as the police authority for the Metropolis, my right hon. Friend should be asking himself why so much scope for civilianisation remains within the Metropolitan police. The report tells us that as at 31 December 1984 the approved establishment of the Metropolitan police was a little over 27,000. Of that number we are told that 1,400—nearly one in20—were engaged on duties that did not require the use of trained police officers; not only that, but at double the cost of employing civilians to do those tasks.
I cannot accept that policing in my constituency and throughout the Thames Valley area is so overstretched, while 1,400 officers in the Metropolitan police are used for duties that could and should be discharged by civilians. Until full advantage is taken of the opportunities for further civilianisation in the Metropolitan police, it would be wrong of my right hon. Friend to approve any further increases in its manpower.
The report shows that since 1983–84 only 372 posts have been civilianised in the Metropolitan police. The target for 1986–87 was for a further 150 posts to be civilianised. At this rate, it will take nearly 10 years to mop up the existing scope for releasing police officers for proper policing duties by taking on civilians in their place.
For those reasons, I fully support the PAC's conclusions. The House is indebted to it for drawing attention to this scandalous misuse of trained police manpower and the deplorably slow progress that is being made in advancing the process of civilianisation.

Mr. John Garrett: I must confess that I am speaking as a PAC watcher for the past 20 years, reading virtually every one of its reports and following its every development with the closest interest. It is a fascinating subject to study and it is nice to have a sector of research all to oneself.
I recently served on the PAC for a month or so—technically, I am still a member—although other duties forced my resignation. I greatly enjoyed my membership

and was very reluctant to leave. I hope that it will not be considered patronising if I say how impressed I was by the high calibre of the membership and interest of the PAC, which must be the best ever.
In the past, the PAC was a backwater, but today it is a major instrument of parliamentary rights. The present PAC is blessed with a Chairman who is not only highly effective but actively involves other members of the Committee. I can remember watching the Committee in the past from the public seats and it was very much a Chairman's Committee; other members hardly got a look in. But today it is a much more actively engaged Committee, and credit for that should go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
I wish to address my remarks to general issues of the conduct of the Committee. They are illuminated by three reports: House of Commons 115, December 1986, "National Audit Office Estimates and Corporate Plan"; House of Commons 98, March 1987, "Financial Reporting to Parliament"; House of Commons 61, April 1987, "The Financial Management Initiative". I select those because they concern the way in which the PAC and the National Audit Office operate and the powers of scrutiny of the PAC with regard to Government.
I came to the conclusion as long ago as 1968, after serving with—no, for—my right hon. Friend on the Fulton committee on the Civil Service, that there was something seriously wrong with public accountability in this country. I concluded that Parliament's machinery—at that time the PAC and the Exchequer and Audit Department—was sadly out of date, was controlled to a wholly unhealthy degree by the Treasury and that no one cared very much about the situation. I will not bore the House with details of the 15-year campaign that followed, which culminated in the National Audit Act 1983, introduced by the former right hon. Member for Chelmsford, Mr. St. John Stevas. The right hon. Gentleman is now a noble Lord, but his title escapes me.
The National Audit Act 1983 received its Third Reading on my final day as a Member of Parliament prior to what I have come to call the wilderness years. It gave the PAC and the National Audit Office independence of the Treasury and all the powers it needed apart from powers to investigate nationalised industries. The opposition to the inclusion of the nationalised industries from some chairmen and trade union leaders was profoundly anti-democratic. No doubt the House will return to that matter.
The PAC is now successfully carrying out its new and enhanced role, as established in the 1983 Act. However, I have a few misgivings about the way in which the state audit system works and some proposals for its development. I will begin with my misgivings.
I have no doubt that the Treasury would like to reclaim its influence over the PAC and the National Audit Office. We must still be vigilant, in view of that threat. I read a Treasury paper only the other day which boasted about the Government's efficiency scrutiny programme and somehow managed to work in a mention of similar work carried out by the PAC. When I read such references, I know that the Treasury tiger is slinking around the perimeter fence and we must be very vigilant. The Treasury would very much like to supervise the National Audit Office closely, especially its staffing, numbers and


grading arrangements. I believe that the Treasury should have no locus in that matter and control should rest with the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
I believe that the PAC produces far too many reports. It produced 34 in 1986 and 19 between January and July 1987, the period under consideration. Most of the reports are good, but too many are superficial. We are getting close now to one report per Committee session—50 a year or more. There should be far fewer reports, but the reports should be in greater depth.
No other Select Committee has anything like the work load of the PAC. There is a case for increased personal assistance and research assistants for PAC members who have to examine senior officials and their senior staff who are always specialists in the matter upon which they are being examined. It is true that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff have served the PAC satisfactorily. However, Committee Members, given the importance of the Committee, which is after all the senior Select Committee of the House, should have personal research assistants to enable them to discharge their duties.
I believe that the PAC and the NAO still concentrate too much on financial control and give too little attention to the effectiveness, result or impact of public spending programmes. The typical PAC report is still about some colossal cost overrun on weapons procurement, building or some other project and not about the social impact of programmes or the results achieved by a given programme. We can all understand why the concentration is on overspending. There is so much of it, the sums involved are so large and the consequences are so obvious. A number of such reports on torpedoes, dockyards and prison buildings have performed a valuable public service.
However, I would like to see much more examination of all those inner-city programmes and the spending programmes from four or five Departments aimed at people living in inner cities to see whether they benefit people living in those areas so we can decide which programmes are more effective than others. That may trespass on the area of the merits of Government policy, but I do not see any harm in that.
Moving to more contentious areas, I believe that the NAO should occasionally compare the provision of public services with the need for such services. For example, what is the gap between what can be objectively established as the need for preventive medicine and the present level of provision? What are the service levels for customers in DHSS local offices, and what should they be to meet the needs of the local population?
The Comptroller and Auditor General's evidence in House of Commons 115 states that assistant auditors are recruited direct from university and trained by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. While it is right that a large proportion of NAO staff should have accountancy qualifications, I believe that recruitment should be widened. If the move is towards studies of the effectiveness and result of spending programmes, the NAO should recruit scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, and economists. That is the practice in the General Accounting Office in the United States. My experience in not too dissimilar work in management consultancy has shown that the best discipline for investigatory studies is civil engineering. Accountancy in this country at least is far too narrow a discipline to be effectively used exclusively for audit staff.
In spite of my misgivings about the system, I believe that new avenues are opening up all the time for increasing the effectiveness of state auditing. All over the world, state audit bodies are expanding their range of inquiries. We need not go so far as the People's Republic of China which is now training 30,000 new auditors in 43 training centres and a further 20,000 by television, but I have the impression from reading the publications of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions that throughout the world audit is developing into a very important arm of legislature.
Where do we go from here in the British state audit system? The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) provides us with the opportunity to discuss the way in which the House handles PAC reports. An allocation of three days; seems reasonable, given the time that we spend on other matters and the length of the parliamentary recesses. Our suggestion for debates on motions could have risked turning PAC meetings into adversarial combat were it not for the device that we have inserted proposing the prior discussion of motions with the Government. The proposal is very modest, but would add weight and legitimacy to the recommendations of the PAC.
Opportunities for developing the scope of our audit system are provided by the useful report on financial reporting to Parliament. There would be great advantage in combining Supply Estimates with public expenditure programmes—just as other organisations have a one-year budget and a multi-year corporate plan. The Government should produce a standard format for the aims, objectives, performance and outputs for public expenditure programmes. A system of performance indicators is required for every estimate and programme, and it is now technically feasible. Such indicators should be incorporated, as the report suggests, in an annual report for every Department of State.
The report on the financial management initiative could also usefully provide the Public Accounts Committee with a means of examining the performance of Government Departments. The financial management initiative, a. concept lifted from the Fulton report, has been grossly over-hyped by the Government. I shall not detain the House with a lengthy description of it, but it is basically a system of management by objectives, combined with a budgetary control system. It divides the Departments into commands, the heads of which have budgets and one day will have objectives and measures of performance.
The PAC rightly commended the system, but it did not say what it would do with the new source of information. In every inquiry from now on, the PAC should demand to see the financial management initiative documents relating to the matters that it is examining, so that it can evaluate what the Civil Service manager was aiming to do, what resources he or she controlled and what, in the Department's eyes, was the performance of the unit under command. In that way, the PAC could examine not only the management of a programme externally but what the Department expected of the programme and its management.
There is one development that the PAC has never touched on. I spoke earlier of the financial management initiative, which is a financial control mechanism. Soon after introducing the FMI, the Management and Personnel Office introduced a personnel work action programme which was intended greatly to advance


personnel management in Departments by improved training and appraisal arrangements. The PAC should inquire into that.
The PAC always examines financial resources. Why does it not examine human resources and the use that Departments make of people? After all, human resources represent by far the greatest administrative cost. The Civil Service is still very poor at personnel management; it wastes talent and fails to make the best use of its human resources. There is nothing in the PAC's terms of reference to prevent it from examining that crucial aspect. There is great scope for the PAC to examine the use that the Departments make of their people.
All in all, since the 1984 Act the PAC has become a great success. I pay tribute to Sir Gordon Downey's work for it. The PAC could be developed in a number of ways to which I have referred. It must always be pushing forward against the boundaries with which the Treasury would like to circumscribe it. I may say that all the reports of the PAC ultimately indict the Treasury. Cost overruns and financial maladministration are found so often that one is entitled to ask what those at the Treasury who were supposed to be supervising matters were doing. They sit at PAC meetings and keep quiet on such issues.
The PAC is an essential arm of parliamentary accountability, and it has an open road ahead of it. Too often in the past the House has been supine in enforcing its rights. The PAC can be the prime vehicle for asserting parliamentary rights over the Executive.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in commending the work of the Public Accounts Committee and especially commend the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has chaired it with considerable distinction. After all, it is not only the most senior Select Committee but it is our constituents' watch-dog over the Executive and expenditure. One of the most important functions of Committees of the House is to see whether the money is wisely spent. I pay great tribute to the Committee.
I refer briefly to the Committee's report. Perhaps the failure of the roads programme is a little greater than the Committee has said. In two respects, there was a lack of foresight in our roads programme. First, there was a failure to assess the amount of traffic, which has increased in line with the increase in affluence. Secondly, there was a misappraisal of axle weights and their impact on the roads. It is not a matter of three or four highways, but of increased weight, which was particularly caused by our European colleagues. Such factors were never considered in time. They led to the construction of roads without sufficient foundations. We are now seeing the results of cracks in road surfaces.
The Committee did excellent work in respect of preventive medicine. Many previously fatal diseases have now been eliminated. Here I take issue with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). Glaucoma should be detected by a general practitioner, not necessarily by an optician. That is a small matter of detail.
It is not for me to advise the Committee, but perhaps it should examine the whole structure of the National Health Service. Do we need as many tiers of authority? For

example, I refer to regional health authorities. Health services were probably better administered when there were hospital governors and local administrations. There is only one snag, and that is that the expensive items of equipment that are required in modern medicine can more easily be found in large organisations. Of course, it is much easier for civil servants and Ministers to administer a large organisation. Nevertheless, the structure of the NHS needs to be looked at, in particular the number of people who work on the executive side and not on the practical side of it. It will take a number of years; it cannot be done overnight. We should start to look at it now.
On two occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) drew attention to the police. I shall not enlarge on his remarks, except to say that we need extra manpower. We found that we did not have enough police even to deal with the Hell's Angels problem or the pop festivals.
I now refer to the 50th report dealing with vehicle excise duty. We all walk along streets and see vehicles without licences. What do we do about it? How do we enforce the law? Now that we have centralised computers, it is possible for traffic wardens to see whether a car is licensed. They need not proceed if the licence has been lost or stolen. However, if they find that the vehicle is not licensed, the proper thing is not to wheelclamp the vehicle, because that only serves to block the traffic, but to take it to the pound. If it is then found that the vehicle is not properly licensed, the fine should be increased to £200 or £300. It is no good fining people only £40. They should pay at least £200. Hon. Members of all parties agree that the fines are derisory and should be increased.
The action that would penalise most would be to have the car towed away and for the owner to be unable to redeem it until the fine has been paid. An offender should have to pay the cost incurred in keeping the vehicle while the prosecution procedure takes place. If a person has made a mistake, not having a licence displayed would be an offence, but the fine should not be imposed.
We are losing an enormous amount of revenue by this offence. Furthermore, if one does not have a current licence, insurance is usually involved. Most insurance companies would say that if one does not have a vehicle licence, one cannot be insured. A person who causes an accident and who does not have a licence would not, therefore, be insured, with all the ensuing awful complications.
The penalties for evading vehicle excise licence should be severe, especially now, when the number of road accidents is increasing. The penalty should be made effective and expensive. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been watching the clock closely and, with your leave, will conclude my remarks.

Mr. Graham Allen: I claim the privilege of being the first Back-Bench Member who has been told to hurry up with his speech so that the Front-Bench spokesmen can have sufficient time. I believe that that has never happened previously in PAC debates. Therefore, I am happy to claim that privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not recall having given the hon. Gentleman any such advice or instruction.

Mr. Allen: Certainly not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to advice given by friends and colleagues of all parties.
The debate is a reflection of the growing importance that attaches to expenditure and to the scrutiny of expenditure in this House. For far too long that has been a most unglamorous subject, although it has necessitated hard work by the Chairman of the PAC and his colleagues, which has been unsung but essential. I should like to join my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the work done by the PAC, which performs a great service for the House.
Any comments that I make about the need for change or reform excludes the PAC. Indeed, the light that the PAC has shed has helped to show the areas that need further examination. Its example serves to inspire the demand for even greater change and scrutiny in the House. Parliamentary democracy is dependent on control, or at least on scrutiny, of finances. Without that, any attempts at policy control are limited and an apparition or an illusion. Unless there is oversight of money so that policy priorities can be realised and policy decisions implemented, I am afraid that we are chasing a ghost and deceiving ourselves.
It is unfortunate that, perhaps, there is an unwitting conspiracy between hon. Members who do not regard the control and scrutiny of finance as important and who, therefore, are not present tonight in the numbers that we would wish, and the Government—not this Government, but the Executive in general—who would rather not have the irritation or occasional embarrassment of proper scrutiny on behalf of the House. The work that the Public Accounts Committee has done and the extension of that work with the National Audit Office—and again I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House for the work that they have done—can show the way in terms of extended accountability to this House in the future.
I would like to make several points and float some ideas that I hope could be considered at some time by those who sit on the Treasury Bench or on the PAC itself; perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure could make certain proposals on how the House itself could exercise control over the process of financial accountability and scrutiny. I have in mind, first, the areas that are not at present scrutinised by the House and certainly do not come under the watchful eye of the PAC. Hon. Members have referred in some instances to fairly minor areas, such as the security services, and other, rather larger areas such as the nationalised industries, or even the area of Government loans, for example, which escape effective monitoring by the House. We should extend the scope of the monitoring, even though we are constantly engaged in a battle of vigilance to retain the areas that currently come under review.
Then there is the way in which the House itself finds time to debate particular reports, not just those of the PAC but the reports on Estimates which are considered by departmental Select Committees. The departmental Select Committees themselves, on a wider issue, could perhaps bear scrutiny when it comes to debating reports and the use of parliamentary time: 565 reports have been written by departmental Select Committees since 1979 and only six have been brought to this House for debate on substantive motions. Votes have taken place on only four. A great deal of progress could be made there. But debating time has been eroded. The Consolidated Fund Bill is often suggested not as another opportunity for exercising

financial accountability and scrutiny but as a debate in which one can raise constituency problems—and there are, sadly, a number of hon. Members who have even abused the good will of the Chair tonight in raising particular, specific constituency issues rather than addressing broader PAC matters which would have been of greater benefit to us all.
I would like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) about correlating the various documents put before the House on public expenditure and Estimates. That ties in with the reporting and debating cycle of the House.
There is a great deal more basic organisation that could be done to bring forward decisions in the House, and that is another area where we could look for improvement and change.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Scarborough (Sir Michael Shaw) for having to leave during his contribution, but I understand that he floated the idea of televising the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. My own view is that, while we should indeed televise the Chamber, far more important is that we televise Select Committees and, even more important, that we start, if that is the option, with the PAC. The Congressional committees have proved the effectiveness of that. While it may not be the sort of popular television that rows during Prime Mininster's Question Time might generate, democracy would be greatly assisted if a Minister or a senior civil servant were questioned by the PAC in some detail. That would benefit both the viewer and the House and enhance hon. Members' views of the role and responsibilities of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Nicholas Brown.

Mr. Allen: I have not finished Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pausing for breath.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had concluded.

Mr. Allen: I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will not go on until 10 o'clock.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and myself tabled an amendment—unfortunately it was not called—that recommended that three days should be set aside to debate PAC reports. We do not want a general debate on the PAC reports as we have had tonight. Tonight's debate has reminded me of Desert Island Discs—"Pick your seven favourite reports and at the end, if you are stranded, pick the one that you would most like to read." We would prefer an in-depth debate on specific reports that would require the House to make a decision. A debate upon such reports could be decided upon after negotiation with Government Ministers. The debate could be on a substantive motion, perhaps regarding a major financial scandal, Government abuse or some other pertinent, urgent matter. Such debates should take place in the House within three months of the publication of the PAC reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South and I also believe that, rather than taking note of a number of reports as we are tonight, we should put before the House a substantive motion requiring a decision. Again, that should not be considered as an attempt to break down the consensus in the PAC. On the contrary, it would build


upon that consensus. The PAC could put a proposal privately to the Minister, negotiations could take place and a decision could be taken ultimately by the House.
I apologise for rushing through this speech. There are a number of other matters that perhaps will be elaborated on other platforms. I am grateful for the time that I have been allocated at the end of this important debate and I wish to conclude by paying tribute to the work of the Chairman and my colleagues on the PAC for their work. I hope that the House respects that valuable work and I believe that the country is all the better for it.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: This has been a decent and good-natured debate and that reflects the approach that the House wishes to adopt to matters of this kind.
As is traditional for the Front Bench spokesmen of both sides, I wish to express my thanks and gratitude to the PAC, and particularly to the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for his work over the past year and a bit—June 1986 was the last time we were able to discuss these matters in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made the nicest point when he said that the best tribute that was paid to my right hon. Friend was when the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) almost inadvertently referred to him as "my right hon. Friend". That reflects the approach that we wish to adopt to these matters. After all, we are all concerned with the two main areas of the Committee's responsibilities—its certification work and what its Chairman has described as the "value for money" side of its activities.
My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) both made important points about the functioning of the Committee and the way in which it relates to Parliament. My predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), said in last year's debate that thanking the Committee was not just a matter of form because public audit and public accountability were important to Parliament and to the integrity of our system of government. My hon. Friends repeated that sentiment with considerable force.
The Committee has sought to highlight five reports. If time allows, I should like to refer to a number of the other reports, but it would be discourteous to the Committee not to refer to the five reports that it wishes to highlight. Two of them come within the sphere of the Department of Transport, two within the sphere of the Home Office and one within the sphere of the Department of Health and Social Security.
The 50th report dealing with vehicle excise duty evasion and enforcement makes an easily discerned and straightforward point. The Committee calculated that 2·2 million people—too many—are evading payment of the duty, and methods of enforcement are proving insufficiently effective. The cost of evasion is calculated at £100 million a year, and the Committee makes the simple but telling point that if the tax is £100 and the average fine for non-payment is £47, there are those in our society who will be tempted into taking a chance on evasion.
I acknowledge that the Home Office and the Magistrates Association will be asked to review the present

position. I note that Sir Alan Bailey told the Committee that with about 300 extra staff he could raise another £1·7 million. It might be more effective if the Treasury were asked to review the nature of the tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East makes a strong case for his constituents and sets out the disadvantages of alternative ideas. I understand that the alternatives carry with them disadvantages of their own, but the Public Accounts Committee will at least have to return to the problem of evasion. Other methods do not carry that problem with them.
The 19th report deals with expenditure on motorways and trunk roads. I am certain that the Committee's recommendations will command widespread support, particularly for the point—the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), among others, mentioned it—about higher standards of new road building to reduce the amount of reconstruction that is necessary. That will strike a chord in the heart of every hon. Member and every motorist who has ever been stuck in a motorway tail-back.
The Committee's recommendations are all based on a fundamental premise:
DTp made it clear that the Secretary of State regarded the matter of allocation of responsibilities as settled, and that his decision overtook and overrode earlier discussion and the need for a further review. However, the Secretary of State accepted that the present trunk road system did not fit the changing pattern of traffic in all cases, and the Department were currently examining it at the margins.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities drew our attention to the strength of local authorities' opposition to the Secretary of State's decision. They remained firmly convinced that there were important practical, financial and manpower advantages to be gained from a transfer of executive responsibility for trunk roads to local authorities, and that these could be achieved without diminishing the Secretary of State's strategic role.
The conclusion to appendix 1 of the report returns to this issue:
The Association's case for the transfer of responsibility for trunk roads rests not only on the policy grounds highlighted in the NAO report, but also on the significant financial and manpower savings which would result. The local authority Associations have been treated in a cavalier fashion in the negotiations on this issue by the Government and the Department of Transport whose position is clearly based on self interest and an entrenched antipathy to local government.
Those are harsh things to say, and these are the strategic matters to which the Public Accounts Committee will have to return. I am not convinced—nor is the AMA—that the division of responsibilities is the right one.
Two highlighted reports that concern the Home Office deal with the Metropolitan police and the prison building programme. To take the latter first, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was right to emphasise an example of the deficiencies in the present improvement programme, which affects her constituency and the whole county of Durham. The report highlights a number of issues—overcrowding, and the mis-match between the type of prison required and the areas most in need of servicing on the one hand, and the buildings that the Home Office intend to construct on the other. The Committee expressed concern, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in his speech, that in 1991 there will still be 20,000 cells without basic sanitation. The Committee also touches on issues of design, manpower and matters involving the Property Services Agency's consultants.
A powerful point with which I agree wholeheartedly was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He said that the area of debate on this issue should be widened to include rehabilitation. The Committee's report recommends much closer liaison between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department and that recommendation may hold the key to a long-term remedy for the problem.
Compared with other European countries, Britain has a surprisingly large prison population. There is much to be gained by examining alternatives to custodial sentences and the probation service and the National Council for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders offers much advice in this respect. The Government should listen to that advice or at least examine it rather than just put it to one side as many of us fear they do. It is also time to examine the issue of cases that have not been brought to trial. Far too many people are in prison for too long before their case is even heard. That in itself is a substantial injustice.
I turn now to what is described in the 45th report as "The unique constitutional and operational position" of the Metropolitan police. The Committee has sought to consider the "patchwork of arrangements"—that is the Home Office's description and not mine—works in practice. The Committee faced a hard job in dealing with that issue. It is a difficult task for a Committee with oversight responsibilities to get to grips with many of the issues that sit alongside the day-to-day control of operational decision making. The issue bedevils the workings of provincial police committees, and I pay tribute to the Public Accounts Committee for having given these issues as good a trawl as could possibly be done.
The overtime issue is one with which it is especially difficult to come to grips, because much depends on operational decisions that are necessarily wholly in the domain of the police. However, we are told that net overtime costs an extra £50 million a year.
I should like to deal with two further issues, the first of which is accounting for expenditure. The report says:
We note that accountability to Parliament operates primarily through the Home Office, with little direct accountability by Met P. The existing Accounting Officer arrangements have certain disadvantages and the quality and form of information provided to Parliament on the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and performance of Met P is clearly unsatisfactory. In these circumstances we doubt whether the arrangements for Parliament accountability are adequate, and they should be reviewed…".
On the important question whether the Metropolitan police is value for money, the report say:
We are concerned that, notwithstanding the progress made in developing improved financial control and management information systems, neither Home Office nor Met P are yet in a position to justify the basic level of Met P expenditure. We regard it as important that these systems should be further developed and refined, and we trust that developments in hand and planned will be pursued with high priority…".
The London boroughs have to pay more than £30 million a year to an organisation over which they are able to exercise no real financial control, nor can they be reassured that the Home Office is exercising such control. In a recent report produced by the London Local Authority Associations for the Home Office, the local authorities make this sensible and modest request in their conclusion:
The use of income and expenditure accounts would ultimately benefit all parties concerned with the finances of the Metropolitan Police. The Police themselves would possess

a more realistic indication of their true financial position and would, as a consequence, be able to take better informed decisions. London Boroughs would also be in a position to more fully understand the problems faced by the Metropolitan Police which would in turn promote more meaningful and productive consultation procedures.
That seems to be a modest demand; it is absolutely right. It is inevitable that the House will return again to the issue. The PAC recommendations are good, but I do not think that of themselves they will its enough.
The final report which the Committee asked us to highlight is the 44th report which deals with preventive medicine; it contains a range of important recommendations. I hope that I do not do them a disservice if I focus on just two. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee read the opening part of paragraph 23.I think he did the full paragraph a disservice by not reading the last two sentences:
This suggests a less than whole-hearted commitment by DHSS and the health authorities. We note that urgent priority is now being given to implementing the new computerised arrangements, and stress the importance of close monitoring to ensure that the deadline of March 1988 is met.
That is what the report says about screening for cervical cancer. It is not an endorsement of what has gone before. If anything is said with telling effect, that must be it.
The importance of the immunisation programme is rightly stressed in the report. Immunisation is particularly important against measles, whooping cough and rubella. The uptake of immunisation region by region should be encouraged and closely monitored. Those points are made with considerable effect in the report.
I should have liked to discuss other matters, but that would be unfair to the Minister, so I make just one last point. Throughout the topics covered by the Public Accounts Committee two recur out of all proportion to the scope of our national life. One is economic public investment in Northern Ireland; the other is defence procurement. I am sure that the House will return to those matters next year, the year after and the year after that.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I shall do my best to respond to many of the points in the 18 minutes remaining, though to cover some 50 reports in that time would be difficult. Although time is short, I should, like everyone else, pay tribute to the work of the Committee and of its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). His tour d'horizon was a tour de force which went on for an hour. I am doing no more than complimenting him and remarking on his obvious enjoyment, which made his speech a pleasure to listen to. I think that all hon. Members would wish to congratulate him on the work of the Committee and to pay tribute to the other Members as well.
As has been said several times, there has been a considerable increase in the burden of work on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman outlined the functions of the Committee as first, tracing where money had gone, and second, obtaining value for money. I thought it interesting and notable that he emphasised the first because at one time it was fashionable to dismiss that. But the right hon. Gentleman gave specific examples of where that had been an important part of the work of the Committee. I agree wholeheartedly with his rubric—efficiency, effectiveness and economy as the three criteria to follow in pursuing value for money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) made the point that inevitably many of the reports have a certain sameness in their conclusions. So in a sense they should. They are bound to be about inputs and outputs, project control and monitoring. As the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, the science of these matters is evolving and developing and it is not surprising that the Committee finds many different areas of government on which to turn the spotlight and about which to make similar recommendations.
We regard the work as extremely important. The hon. Member for Norwich, South may be sceptical of some of what the Government have done—I pay tribute to his expertise—but the Government, more than any other, attach enormous importance to the business of government and obtaining value for money in things such as the scrutiny programme mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), which is very important in the mind of the Government.
It would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to the work of the NAO, as other hon. Members have done, in particular to the work of Sir Gordon Downey as Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwich, South has appeared in the debate only to disappear from the Committee. Years ago, when he and I were on the Select Committee on Procedure, he told me how he would revolutionise Parliament when he got on the Public Accounts Committee. I am sorry that he is going after such a short period, although I see that he has passed the torch to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to, among other reports, the eighth report on "Financial Reporting to Parliament", as did other hon. Members. In one sense that report is the most central of those discussed today.
The Government have done much work to improve the ability to read across from the public expenditure White Paper to the Estimates. We intend that the improvements noted by the PAC will be continued. The two documents ought to be brought closer together and we intend to report further on that to the PAC early in 1988.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South referred to targets, inputs and outputs being published across Departments. That is the direction in which the Committee is moving. Last year's public expenditure White Paper was very much a step forward. As a Treasury Minister, with my experience of the Inland Revenue as a department, I know that cannot be achieved overnight. It requires, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, a certain amount of time and a lot of work to bring about.
Many hon. Members referred to the report on prison building. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, and the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) referred to that report, although the hon. Lady referred to a particular case. I hope she will understand that I cannot comment on it, but I will draw it to the attention of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made some strong comments about the report and about conditions in prisons. I entirely agree with the strong comments made by many hon. Members and I very much sympathise with what the hon.
Gentleman said about rehabilitation. Speaking for myself, it is nonsense that we put into prison some people who do not have a long criminal record, in conditions that are absolutely appalling, and it is not surprising that those people turn into more hardened criminals. It has always seemed to me that Dr. Johnson got it right all those centuries ago when he said that the trouble with prison is that half the inmates should not be there and half the people who were not in there should be there. The success of penal colony depends on classification.
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the work of the Government. The scandals of the cells, the absence of sanitation facilities and slopping out are terrible, but the hon. Gentleman might have given a little more recognition to the Government for having done more for prisons than any Government for many years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) deserves enormous credit for what he did when he was Home Secretary. It is a fact that between 1918 and 1958 not a single prison was built in Britain and that is the root of so many of the problems that we face.
The hon. Member for Workington was right to draw attention to the fact that, even after this substantial programme, there will still be a tremendous problem of inadequate sanitation in prisons. Without the tremendous increase in resources that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to devote to this, the problem would have been much worse. At least the problem will be getting better.

Mr. John Garrett: Surely the point is that not only have the Government built more prison places but they have actually put more people in prison. The prison population has grown faster than ever before since the Government came to power.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure that the Government can be blamed for that. The increase in the detection of crime should not necessarily be an object of criticism. However, this is beginning to become more of a party political debate than I had intended. I agree that the balance between custodial and non-custodial sentences will be extremely important in that respect.
I think that the Committee recognised that a tremendous amount of work is being done in the design of new prisons. There will be more prisons, both on the modern, galleried model and on the American triangular model, which will be more economical in the use of staff and a step forward.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Lamont: I cannot give way because an enormous number of points have been made and I should at least attempt to answer them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) and others touched on the Metropolitan police. He was particularly concerned about the inadequacy of the rate at which posts were being civilianised in the Metropolitan police. I shall certainly draw what he said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I take the point that that has an impact on constituencies such as his, because if the programme were larger, the opportunities for the release of policemen to areas such as his, where he feels that there is a need for them, would be much greater.
This year, in response to the Committee's concern at the pace of civilianisation, the staff ceiling was increased by


250, with a target of releasing 160 police officers. Determined efforts are being made to meet that target. However, the Metropolitan police are now finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain suitable staff, especially for operational support duties and technical work, and the Home Office is working with them to see what improvements can be made to attract staff.
I hope that the hon. Member for Workington will allow me to comment briefly on what he said about whistle blowers. I shall certainly pursue that with the Ministry of Defence. I know that the hon. Gentleman spoke with sincerity when he made his points and I know that he believes his case. I hope that he will accept that, although I do not have the information to reply to him at my finger tips, I recall the outline of the case because I was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence for a short time when some of this matter was discussed.
I just remind the hon. Gentleman of a different view that was also taken in all sincerity. First, one must be convinced—I think that this point was also made in a Treasury minute—that any savings made in contracts came about as a result of information that was given and that this was not something that would have arisen anyway.
The second point is one of principle, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) hinted. One must pause before readily accepting the principle that people who inform on companies should automatically be given a pecuniary reward. That poses problems and I know that the Chief of Defence Procurement has devoted much time to thinking about that problem and examining what the hon. Gentleman has said. He came to the conclusions that I conveyed to the hon. Gentleman before. However, I shall certainly undertake to remind the Ministry of Defence about the hon. Gentleman's continuing concern.
Many hon. Members talked about vehicle excise duty and its enforcement—the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who made it one of the main points in his opening speech. I am afraid that the subject is one that falls foul of the criterion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, who said that we should not return to the same subject in another year. This has been a hardy annual with the PAC, I fear. It is a matter of continuing concern. The Committee acknowledged the progress made by the Department of Transport in improving its efforts to combat evasion. Since the Committee examined the subject during the summer of 1986, considerable progress has been made to strengthen enforcement and improve productivity.
During the last financial year, 1986–87, some 345,000 offenders were prosecuted, or made out-of-court settlements with the Department of Transport. The revenue from fines, settlements and back duty exceeded £23 million, an increase of 10 per cent, over the previous year's figure, and some two and a half times the 1982 figure.
The report, and a number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, expressed concern at the low average fine imposed by the courts on those convicted of VED evasion. I strongly agree with some of the points that were made. The Government have in the past pointed out the unsatisfactory position to the Magistrates Association.
The average total penalty, including back duty and costs imposed last year, was £91, and I certainly do not feel that that was enough. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the point that evasion was not going down, but there was a large number of prosecutions. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the penalties are indeed too low.
A point was made about more staff for enforcement. The Government's policy is to increase effort by further improving productivity, and, of course, liaison with the police—drives such as those that we have seen in many parts of the country. I am informed that there was one on the Embankment this morning, only a few hundred yards from here. Such things can be done without extra manpower.
The hon. Members for Swansea, East and for Argyll and Bute raised the question of replacing VED with a petrol tax. I have to agree that it would stop evasion, but, as the hon. Lady and others said, the extra cost of petrol—39p—would hit essential high-mileage motorists, business, industry and particularly rural areas. We would still need to maintain a central register for use by the police. The Government would change the system only if the benefits clearly outweighed the drawbacks.
I have about a minute and a half in which to respond to a good many points. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke about tackling abuse of mortgage relief, and asked why we did not introduce a system of receipts for building work—the point being, I assume, to ensure that the money was spent on building, rather than on holidays in the south of Spain. We have examined the matter. However, a system of checks would be effective only if it were possible to ensure that it was done in considerable detail. Several million people are involved. We are doing sample checks, which is quite staff-intensive. To carry out complete checks would be very much more costly. We have taken various other measures.
I have missed many of the points that have been made, and I apologise to the House. I have dealt with as many of the points as I could as quickly as possible, and I am very grateful to all those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 15th and 19th to 52nd Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1985–86, of the 1st to 19th Reports of Session 1986–87 and of the Treasury Minutes on those Reports (Cmnd. 9846, 9859, 9917 and 9924, and Cm. 138, 177, 224 and 236), with particular reference to the following Reports of Session 1985–86—
Nineteenth, Expenditure on motorways and trunk roads;
Twenty-fifth, Prison building programmes;
Forty-fourth, Preventive medicine;
Forty-fifth, Financial control and accountability of the Metropolitan Police;
Fiftieth, Vehicle Excise Duty evasion and enforcement.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp; c.)

HOUSING

That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) (No.2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

That the draft National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit (Transfer of Functions and Abolition) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

MEDICINES

That the draft Pharmaceutical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No.2) (Amendment No. 11) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1902), dated 6th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

Scottish Penal System

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: My reason for calling this debate is to protest about the seemingly total failure of the Scottish Office to exercise its function of political and professional leadership over the Scottish penal system. The only policy that seems to exist is to put up more buildings and more prisons, thus compounding the present mess. There was a capital building programme of £10·5 million in 1984–85, compared with £5·4 million in 1983–84. The erection of buildings often occurs when one runs out of ideas. They are symbols. They are pretences that one is doing something. They are the lazy, dim politician's answer to the question, "What are you doing?" They are a monument to yesterday's problems. The Scottish public is paying a heavy price for the Tory party's appeasement of its backwoodsmen.
My motive in calling for this debate is to ensure that a more effective penal system is introduced that will bring comfort to the people of Scotland. The present system does not work, because 84 per cent, of those who are released from youth custody re-offend within two years, and it is likely that the adult recidivism rate is even higher. There is the maximum expenditure for the minimum return.
What do we have in terms of professional leadership from the Scottish Office? The director of the Scottish prison service has been quoted as saying that prisons should not be seen as places for reform or rehabilitation but as places for containment, albeit humane containment. Is that the sum total of the Government's penal policy—humanely to contain? It is an open secret that the prison service in Scotland has lost its way and that it is the despair not just of the Scottish public but of Scottish Office Ministers, too.
The prison service has lost its way, but there is another group of professionals within the Scottish Office about whom nothing is heard. I refer to the social work services group. This group has a subterranean profile, and if you asked people in this place, Mr. Speaker, what the social work services group is, you would probably be met with a blank gaze; there are blank gazes around the Chamber at the moment. There is not the slightest evidence that the social work services group exists. Is it producing good material that is being stifled within the Scottish Education Department where it is housed, or is it being stifled by Scottish Office Ministers? Is it producing nothing in terms of professional leadership? If so, what will the Secretary of State do about it? Its role is to advise the Secretary of State on the development of services for offenders, as well as for many other groups.
We currently have a policy vacuum within Scotland. It is an official policy vacuum, because in a written reply that I received from the Minister this week about proposals to increase substantially the range and quality of sentencing options available to the courts for the 16 to 21 age group, he said that the Secretary of State had no present plans to extend the existing wide range of sentencing options available to the courts.
We in Scotland have a deplorable record: at least, I think it is deplorable, but perhaps the Minister will give his


views. We imprison more people than any other country in western Europe, and this year we broke the record again by having 5,600 people incarcerated in prison, which is double the figure of England and Wales. When I compare, as I will, Scotland with England and Wales, I should point out that I am comparing the worst with the next worst. Therefore, there is even more dishonour in the figures.
It is not enough to be critical. We must ask why our prisons are so full. There are many people in prison who need not be there. They are there because of the inert nature of the Scottish Office which has failed to give a lead. The first group of such people are fine defaulters. In 1984–85, the number of adults received into prison as a result of defaulting on fines increased by 23 per cent. With regard to young offenders, the percentage rose by 43 per cent. About half the adults received into Scottish prisons were fine defaulters. They received very short sentences, but they cluttered up the system, thus preventing the prison service from doing more serious work. In 1986, there were 10,600 defaulters which is 4,000 more than the figure for 1981. In 1985, half of those received into young offender institutions were admitted because of fine defaulting. In November 1986, half of these defaulters had fines of less than £75. Almost three quarters of those people released from prison were unemployed.
What are we seeking to achieve by imprisoning such people? There are ways of reducing the number of fine defaulters—day fines, better enforcement of fines and community service. Once again, the percentage of prison receptions for fine default in Scotland is almost double that of England and Wales, It can be done, but why is Scotland not doing it?
Another group whose numbers should be reduced are those on remand. Almost 18,000 people were received on remand in 1986, which is three times as many as in England and Wales. The unfortunate aspect of remands is that in the end a large number of people do not receive a custodial sentence. One suspects quite frequently that those who have been put on remand have not been put there for the best of motives. We have evidence that the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 is not working.
The next group of people who should not be in prison are those who are sentenced for drink-related causes. They clutter up the system in a ridiculous way when a large number of alternatives exist. Scotland has only one designated place for alcoholics—Albyn house in Aberdeen. It has had a tremendous impact in its first year and the procurator fiscal for the area has been able to reduce prosecutions for drunkenness from 600 to a mere 300. Imagine the impact that such centres all around Scotland would have on the prison population. However, the local authorities have no resources to provide them. Their capital allocations are circumscribed by the Scottish Office and extra expenditure is heavily penalised by clawback grant.
Other groups which should not be imprisoned include the severely mentally ill. Recently, the director of the prison service said that within the prisons there were people with serious personality disorders and aggressive psychopaths who simply should not be in prison. He said that the training of prison officers was inadequate to cope with such prisoners.
Other mentally ill people in prisons include those who are a danger only to themselves. That includes people who may have been released from mental hospitals with

inadequate community support and who now, as always, go to prison because of the lack of thought on the part of those responsible for running the affairs of this country.
Another smaller but very significant group who should not be in prison includes those now imprisoned because of changes to the parole rules within Scotland. They have created a small but significant group of no-hopers. We must take action to tackle that problem. The impact of that group on the prison system is very serious.
If the Scottish Office tackled the problem, it could make prisons more manageable and more productive. However, there is more to it than that. In the few moments left to me, I want to consider the 16 to 21 age group. As I said earlier, they seem to be neglected in Scotland. A good deal of thought went into the construction of the children's hearings system, but we simply seem to say that at the age of 16, or, in theory, at 18, a person is cast into the adult penal system. If we compare the Scottish system with the English and Welsh system we find that a far smaller proportion of offenders is dealt with in Scotland through methods other than fines, dismissals or custody.
As with almost everything else, community service orders started later in Scotland and developed more slowly, and they are still hamstrung for lack of resources. The courts in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland discovered last year that they would like to place 1,200 offenders on community service orders if the social work authorities could have found places for those offenders. However, once again there are only sufficient staff and resources to provide 400 places.
When we consider that the courts have decided that community service orders are the correct way to proceed and are credible to the courts; that the cost of a community service order is £15 per head and the average cost of a prison place is £260 per head per week; and even worse than that according to the Minister's figures — for Peterhead it is £560 per head a week and for Shotts it is £550 per person per week—we see that the situation is crazy. We should be developing community service orders.
I hope that when the Under-Secretary meets representatives from COSLA tomorrow he will announce a massive extension of the community service order system and 100 per cent, funding for it. That system saves money for the penal system budget. It is simply not right that we should waste public money in that way.
In England and Wales the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has sponsored 45 specialised youth training schemes for offenders involving more than 2,000 places. To the best of my knowledge there is no equivalent in Scotland. With all the changes to the YTS, it becomes more and more difficult to provide specialised youth training schemes of that kind for the most vulnerable in our society.
Where is the professional leadership of the Scottish Office? One is repeatedly struck by the lack of such leadership. Where are the intensive supervision and befriending schemes? Where are the bail hostels and where is the other supportive accommodation, given that homelessness is such a significant predictor of future offending? Why has the Scottish Office done so little to stimulate pre-prosecution diversion along the lines suggested by Lord Stewart in his 1983 report?
I am genuinely in favour of the generic social work service in Scotland, but I have no doubt that Scotland has lost out with the disappearance of the specialist probation service. When the new social work departments were


started in 1968, about 50 per cent, of trained social workers were probation trained. The figure is nothing like that nowadays. Unless we tackle the younger age group of 16 to 21-year-olds, who make up 30 per cent, of the prison population—76 per cent, of the prison population are under 30—we shall stoke up the fires in the prison service. It is not good enough to say, "Why did the riot happen? Which individual caused it?" One has to examine the underlying causes, and the underlying cause that we must tackle is the lack of alternatives to prison in the Scottish penal system.
The Minister may well say that I have strayed into the province of the Minister who is responsible for social work. That is the trouble with the Scottish Office; it cannot get its act together.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his closely argued speech calling for a more effective penal system. I intend to give a comprehensive response. I shall read his speech again tomorrow and at the weekend and if I have not answered any point I shall certainly write to him on it.
The Government are of course concerned at the number of offenders who are sent to prison, and we have therefore taken action in several areas. Imprisonment must be seen as a last resort, particularly in the case of young offenders and adult offenders who have not previously been imprisoned. Accordingly, the Government legislated in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 to place restrictions on courts passing sentences of imprisonment in such cases. Under the 1980 Act, a court cannot sentence a young offender to imprisonment unless he is legally represented, and in the case of adult first offenders, the court must obtain a social inquiry report and state the reasons why no other sentence is appropriate.
On community service by offenders, the Government can claim a creditable record. At the end of 1979, five schemes for community service by offenders were operating, whereas now schemes are available in all regions, covering the majority of Scotland and most of the densely populated areas. In 1980, the number of community service disposals was under 500. By 1985, that number had increased to almost 2,900—an increase of 300 over the previous year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will shortly lay before the House his report on the working of the community service scheme for 1986, which will show that the figure has increased again—this time to more than 3,400.
The Government certainly appreciate the hard work undertaken by local authorities and their employees in developing community service up to its present level.
In the Government's view, community service is an important element in the sentencing options that are available to the courts. It is a disposal that appeals to all schools of penal theory, since it enables the offender to make reparation to society and, at the same time, make a constructive contribution to the welfare of the community. The offender is placed in the role of "helper" and is thus made aware of his responsibilities to the community at

large. The ties of work and family are maintained, and they all help to prevent a repetition of the offending behaviour.
The importance—I assure the hon. Gentleman of this point—that the Government attach to this disposal can be seen from the high level of grant that they make available to local authorities towards the cost of schemes. The grant is 80 per cent, for the first five years and 70 per cent, for the following five years.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear in a reply on Monday to the hon. Member, the arrangements for providing community service by offenders are at present under review. My hon. Friend will see the social work committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities tomorrow afternoon to discuss a range of subjects, including community service by offenders. From time to time, local authorities have pressed for the level of grant to be increased, or for the expenditure not to be reckoned for grant penalty under rate support grant. The level of 80 per cent, which I mentioned earlier is hardly niggardly. I am not aware that, since the inception of community service, any scheme has been rejected or even delayed for lack of the 80 per cent, central Government grant.
Probation also is a non-custodial disposal that the Government are anxious to foster. It has particular attractions for the bench for certain offences because it has a rehabilitative intention which the hon. Gentleman would support. The number of probation orders made in Scotland, regrettably, fell substantially during the 1970s, from 5,900 in 1970 to 2,400 in 1980. I am glad to say, however, that since then there has been a steady increase, reaching almost 3,000 in 1985.
As evidence of the Government's concern to develop this disposal, we made two provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 to this end. First, we reduced the minimum length of a probation order from 12 months to six months. That will enable the courts to make more flexible use of probation, and encourage them to use longer periods of probation for more serious offences where custody may be under consideration. Research studies suggest that shorter-term work is effective where the specific problems and difficulties of an individual offender are clearly identifiable, and where he or she is willing to tackle them with assistance from the supervising social worker.
Secondly, we accepted an amendment enabling compensation to be made a requirement of a probation order. Both of our initiatives have been generally welcomed, but as the House will appreciate, it is as yet too early to come to any final conclusion on their long-term effect.
Compensation orders are a worthwhile addition which this Government have introduced to the range of disposals available to the courts at present. They were made available by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which allows courts to order an offender to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage caused by the acts which constituted the offence. The use of such orders by the courts to enable victims to receive some reparation from the offender is clearly something that we wish to encourage. Besides the direct benefit to the victim who receives the compensation, the orders may often be more appropriate than a fine, since they draw to the offender's attention the damage or suffering that he has caused and require him to make amends, at least in


part. Their use by the courts has increased from 2,384 orders in 1981, when they were first introduced, to 9,565 orders in 1986.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned fine enforcement, which is abviously an important matter. The fine is the most frequently used disposal in the criminal justice armoury. Roughly four out of every five convicted offenders are fined. It is therefore absolutely essential that the credibility of the fine as a court disposal should be preserved. This implies that there must be tough sanctions against defaulters. Let us not forget that the vast majority of people who are fined at present pay their fines. It is, of course, regrettable that the sanction of imprisonment has to be invoked even to this extent because of the social and financial costs of imprisonment, and because in such cases the court has already decided that the appropriate disposal for the original offence is not custody. However, solutions are not easy to come by.
The Government have appointed 15 fines officers to sheriff courts throughout Scotland in an effort to secure the payment of fines ordered by the courts. These officers assist the offender in managing payment of the outstanding amounts and frequently can provide information to the courts allowing instalments to be set at appropriate levels. We are currently assessing the work that has so far been undertaken in this area and the eventual report should help us to decide whether further development of this work may be fruitful.
The credibility of the fine as a disposal also depends on the courts effectively relating the size of the fine to the offender's ability to pay. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 requires sentencers to take offenders' means into account when deciding on the extent of a fine. However, Scottish Office statistics show that the average fine imposed by the courts has been increasing faster than inflation over recent years. There is poor public awareness of the impact of even a small fine on someone who is unemployed and dependent on benefit income for minimum living essentials. Courts may be aware of the impact, but public opinion may lead them to impose fines at a level which reflect the seriousness of the offence rather than the offender's means. I will consider whether there are any steps that I can take to alleviate this problem, and to ensure that fines are properly related to the offender's means without significantly diminishing their essential deterrent effect.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister does not seem aware of the seriousness of the issue of fine defaulting. The statistics that I quoted suggest that about half the intake in young offenders' institutions are there as a result of fine defaulting. What he has said does not appear to measure up to the gravity of the problem.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the problem. As I have just stated, I shall consider whether there are any steps that I can take to alleviate the problem and to ensure that fines are properly related to the offenders' means without significantly diminishing their central deterrent effect.
I have been asked about parole, and, although I should like to speak also about alcoholics and drunkenness, I have only four minutes left.
I am, of course, aware of criticism that has been expressed concerning the Government's parole policy. I do

not accept that this policy means "no hope" for many long-term prisoners. The policy allows for "exceptional circumstances" to set aside the presumption against early release for specified categories of both life and fixed sentences. Even in cases where there are no exceptional circumstances, the parole board can recommend that a prisoner be released on parole a few months early. This is a subject that my right hon. and learned Friend is considering carefully at the moment.

Mr. Bruce Millan: What does the Minister mean by that? Is he considering the whole question of parole or the restrictions that the Secretary of State has imposed on certain categories of offences, because it is the latter that is causing the trouble?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend is looking at that subject.
Remands are another area which deserve attention. In case I do not have time to answer the points raised about alcoholics, I shall write fully to the hon. Gentleman. That point is extremely important.
Another area which deserves attention is the extent to which accused persons are remanded in custody, pending trial or sentence. In this connection, Scotland's reception rate for remand prisoners is exceptionally high. About 19,000 remand prisoners are received annually out of a total of 43,000. Scottish Office researchers are about to undertake a detailed study of the bail and remand process in Scotland. The study will address the factors which affect the decisions made in a large sample of cases. These include the factors which affect the police decision whether to hold an accused in custody before his court appearance, the prosecution's decision whether to oppose a bail application and the court's decision whether to grant bail. In the light of the results of the study, it may be possible to determine whether there are any practical measures which would effectively reduce the need for so many individuals to be remanded by our courts.

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not give way, because I have only another minute.
That does not mean that we are not prepared in the meantime to take steps which may have the effect of reducing the numbers remanded in custody where this can be done without prejudicing the administration of justice or the safety of the public. We have, therefore, funded the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to look at and report on the problems of making suitable accommodation available for persons awaiting trial who have no fixed address and might, for that reason, have to be remanded in custody. Besides this, the Lord Advocate has recently issued new guidelines on bail to procurators fiscal in the light of experience since the implementation of the Bail Etc (Scotland) Act 1980.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the number of people with alcohol-related problems in prison. May I assure him that the Scottish prison service makes every effort to help those inmates who have such problems. Medical officers, nursing officers and all other staff are trained to play their part. There are special units at Low Moss prison and Cornton Vale institution for helping those with alcohol problems. In addition, Alcoholics Anonymous holds regular meetings at all establishments and the National Council on Alcoholism and its local


branches are also of assistance. It is encouraging to note that the number of inmates requiring treatment for alcoholism has declined steadily over the past five years from 1,888 in 1982 to 816 in 1986.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about Albyn house in Aberdeen. As well as that, a grant has recently been offered to the Church of Scotland for a proposed

designated place at Raigmore hospital in Inverness. I understand that locally there is general agreement that the designated place in Aberdeen has made a significant contribution to decriminalising drunkenness in the area.

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.